On the Cross and Platform at Richborough

202 ON THE CROSS AND PLATFORM When my report of the excavations at Eichborough appeared in 1865, the Hon. Secretary of our Society, the late Mr. T. Gr. Godfrey-Faussett, added a note as a summary of our researches, with his own theory, which was the same in substance as that which was adopted by Mr. Planche.* Mr. Faussett did not see that our excavations had at least shewn that we had discovered the very cave mentioned by Leland, " wher men have sowt and digg-ed for treasure." He did not notice that I described the outer walls surrounding the cross, and marked P on my plan of the platform, " as built of boulders; those on outside squared, imbedded in mortar, composed of lime, grit, and broken tile, but containing •more sand than other mortar at Eichborough, and easily crumbling in the fingers It had a course of bonding tiles, apparently Boman, but shewing signs of having been broken before their present use, as if taken from an older building" (seemy reportf). And I may here mention that Mr. Godfrey-Faussett had never seen the platform laid bare and the foundations of the walls I described resting upon it; indeed it is not likely that any one except Mr. Drake and myself (if we except the labourers at the work) had ever seen these walls, as from the quantity of soil upon the platform we were compelled to lay bare the latter by trenching large portions at a time, and then filling them up with the soil of the next trench. Certainly Mr. Faussett, if he had paid any attention to the details of these excavations, could not have written as he did, and ascribed them to the same builders as the makers of the cross or platform. In short, Mr. Faussett's theory was that the Comes Littoris Saxonici designed to erect here a Pharos or watch-tower of unusual height, and mistrusting the sand of the hill, dug down 30 feet for the foundation ; he imagined, however, that some mutiny of troops, or series of Saxon attacks, led to the abandoning of the large scheme, and then the cruciform building was a substitute, and the walls (F on my plan) used as supports to timber resting against them, and the cross in the centre. In sup- * See Planohe, A Corner of Kent, p. 8. + Archceoloyia Cantiana, Vol. VIII., p. 9,