Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:08:36.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of the Construction of the Saxon Shore Fort at Richborough

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

J. S. Johnson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the third century A.D., there was a series of barbarian invasions in Gaul. The last, in 276, was the most serious, for some fifty or sixty towns had fallen into enemy hands and had to be recaptured. Most Gallic towns had proved an easy prey to the Germanic invaders, for they were built in a spacious style, and for the most part without defensive walls. Dijon is said to have received its walls in the time of Aurelian, but positive evidence for the construction-date of the walls of the Gallic towns is in most cases not forthcoming, although it seems that these defences were constructed in the late third century and early fourth, probably as a result of the Germanic invasions. The style of building was what became the well-known style of the third century and after—thick walls, with exterior towers or bastions, tile bonding courses, and much re-use of earlier material.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 1 , November 1970 , pp. 240 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © J. S. Johnson 1970. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* I am very grateful to Professor S. S. Frere, Mr. A. L. F. Rivet and Mr. R. M. Reece for reading through this article in typescript and offering valuable help and criticism of its presentation and subject matter.

1 Dr. Butler, R. M., in Arch. Journ., cxvi (1959), 25Google Scholar ff., ‘Late Roman Town Walls of Gaul’, gives the dating evidence for those continental walls which have provided any. It usually takes the form of a terminus post quern established by coins found in the wall core or mortar. Only Grenoble is securely dated, by an inscription, to 286–305. The conclusion that he comes to is that ‘it seems consistent with the available evidence to suggest that the period 286-306 saw the erection of these town walls’ (ibid., 47).

2 Pevensey is probably the one exception from this generalization. The coin histogram and the close relation of a coin of Constantine with one of the bastions point to a date around 330–40 for the construction of the fort.

3 Richborough, v, p. 245.

4 Richborough, v, p. 244.

5 Richborough, iv, p. 65.

6 Richborough, v, pp. 26–27. The remarkable statement on p. 27 ‘the last four, [coins i.e. the indeterminate, the Allectus and the two Constantinian] if definitely from the ditch fillings, which is doubtful, came from the top layers and may be considered intrusive’ shows that there was much contamination which perhaps went unnoticed. Professor Cunliffe informs me that the soil was removed from the ditches in horizontal layers, which would not help in establishing whether there were any intrusive features, as there almost undoubtedly were.

7 Richborough, iv, p. 66.

8 Richborough, v, p. 263.

9 This view is put by White, D. A., in Litus Saxonicum, Madison, Wisconsin, 1961.Google Scholar

10 Richborough, v, p. 264.

11 In Proceedings of the Belfast Natural History Association, 1928–29, especially pp. 22–23.

12 Cf. Sutherland, Coinage and Currency in Roman Britain, Appendix III, especially pp. 162–63.

13 Pan. Lat., viii (v), 6 (Oxford Classical Texts, ed. R. A. B. Mynors). The walls of Boulogne fell so easily, it is implied, because of Maximian's genius. But the fact that a panegyrist makes this flattering comment may afford little or no evidence as to how easily the ‘Gesoriagenses muri’ fell.

14 Richborough, iv, pp. 68–72. On p. 68 Mr. Bushe-Fox suggests that the ditch was dug in error, and on p. 71 gives the dating evidence for the definite fill of rubbish at the bottom of the ditch dug in error. The pottery was all of the third century and there were 3 coins of Tetricus I and 2 indeterminate radiates.

15 Richborough, v, p. 245.

16 Richborough, ii, p. 33–34. Professor Cunliffe in correspondence raises the possibility that pit 26 was an earlier well, into which the foundation might have sunk down through compaction of the lower filling. That it was intended as a well is likely: but the excavators specifically report ‘very little building rubbish’ among its contents save in the mouth. The collapsed foundation, had it existed, could hardly have been missed. It consisted of ‘a packing of stone—mostly water-worn flints—Ift.-2ft. deep… capped with a carefully levelled layer of chalk a few inches thick’ (Richborough, ii, 22).

17 Richborough, ii, p. 34.

18 First suggested or hinted at by Sir Charles Peers in the Ministry of Works guide to Portchester Castle; the trend is echoed in the latest Ministry pamphlet on Richborough, which, though still in Mr. Bushe-Fox's name, is not so categorical about Carausius's part in the building of the fort there as its immediate predecessor. Professor Cunliffe's paper is in Richborough, v, pp. 255–7.

19 In Arch. Journ., loc. cit. (note 1).

20 Eutropius, ix, 21 and Victor, xxxix, 21, are agreed that Carausius had gained a convincing ascendancy over the barbaros, even though it is hard to reconcile their given reason for his being declared an outlaw with the Britons' apparent acceptance of him as their leader and emperor.

21 In Numismatic Studies, 112.

22 Sutherland, in Coinage and Currency in Roman Britain, but cf. also Dr. Kent, J. P. C., in Limes Studien (Basle 1959) pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar

23 The fact that Eutropius describes the limit of Carausius' command as apud Bononiam per tractum Belgicae et Armorici pacandum mare need not exclude him from concern also for the coasts of Britain. It makes tactical nonsense to defend the Gallic shores while allowing the pirates to land and plunder in Britain, and the defence of both shores must have been included in the one commission.