Editing Reculver (section)

==History==
===Toponymy===
The earliest recorded form of the name, ''Regulbium'', is in [[Latin]] and dates from the early 5th century or before, but it had its origin in a [[Common Brittonic]] word meaning "at the promontory" or "great headland". In [[Old English]] this became corrupted to ''Raculf'', sometimes given as ''Raculfceastre'', giving rise to the modern "Reculver".<ref>{{harvnb|Ekwall|1960|page=383}}; {{harvnb|Mills|1998|page=285}}; {{harvnb|Glover|1976|page=155}}; {{harvnb|Jessup|1936|page=190}}.</ref>{{refn|"Many more [Old English] forms are on record."{{sfn|Ekwall|1960|p=383}}|group=Fn}} The form "Raculfceastre" includes the Old English place-name element "[[Chester (placename element)|ceaster]]", which frequently relates to "a [Roman] city or walled town".{{sfn|Ekwall|1960|pp=xxvii, 92}}

===Prehistoric and Roman===
{{main|Regulbium}}
[[File:OldMapKent.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|left|alt=Map of late Roman Kent|Map of Kent early in the 5th century, showing how Reculver (marked here as "Reculbium" at top right) was then at the north-eastern corner of mainland Kent, with the [[Wantsum Channel]] between it and the [[Isle of Thanet]]: Gardiner, S.R., ''A School Atlas Of English History'', 1892]]
[[Stone Age]] [[flint]] tools have been washed out from the cliffs to the west of Reculver,<ref>{{cite news|last=Dingle|first=J.|date=17 February 1862|title=The flint implements|url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000242/18620217/013/0002|newspaper=Newcastle Daily Journal|access-date=6 May 2014|url-access=subscription |postscript=;}} {{harvnb|Canterbury City Council|2008|p=5}}.</ref> and a [[Mesolithic]] [[tranchet axe]] was found near the centre of the [[Roman Empire|Roman]] fort in 1960.{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=192}} This was probably an accidental loss, rather than suggesting a human settlement, evidence for which begins with late [[Bronze Age Britain|Bronze Age]] and [[British Iron Age|Iron Age]] ditches.{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=192}} These indicate an extensive settlement,<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|page=192}}; {{cite web | url=http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1906717&resourceID=304 | title=West of Fort on Cliff | author=Heritage Gateway | publisher=[[English Heritage]] | year=2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140408234029/http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1906717&resourceID=304 |archive-date=8 April 2014 | access-date=18 May 2014 | postscript=;}} {{cite web | url=http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1864064&resourceID=304 | title=Reculver | author=Heritage Gateway | publisher=English Heritage | year=2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140408233738/http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1864064&resourceID=304 | archive-date=8 April 2014 | url-status=live | access-date=19 April 2014}}</ref> where a Bronze Age [[palstave]] and Iron Age gold coins have been found.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6498 | title=Palstave, found at Reculver | author=Exploring Kent's Past | publisher=Kent County Council | date=n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605153809/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6498 | archive-date=5 June 2015 | url-status=live | access-date=5 June 2015| postscript=;}} {{cite web | url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6487 | title=Iron Age gold coins (5), found at Reculver | author=Exploring Kent's Past | publisher=Kent County Council | date=n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605153950/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6487 | archive-date=5 June 2015 | url-status=live | access-date=5 June 2015}}</ref> This was followed by a "fortlet" built by the Romans during their [[Roman conquest of Britain|conquest of Britain]], which began in 43&nbsp;AD,<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|pages=98–102, 192–3}}.</ref> and the existence of a [[Roman roads in Britain|Roman road]] leading to Canterbury, about {{convert|8.5|mi|km|1}} to the south-west, indicates a Roman presence at Reculver from then onwards.<ref>{{harvnb|Jessup|1936|pp=190–1}}; {{harvnb|Philp|2005|p=3}}.</ref> A full-size fort, or [[Castra|''castrum'']], was started late in the 2nd century. This date is derived in part from a reconstruction of a uniquely detailed plaque, fragments of which were found by archaeologists in the 1960s.<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|pages=206–18 (esp. 210–3)}}; {{harvnb|Philp|1969b|page=}}; {{harvnb|Philp|1969a|page=}}; {{PastScape|mnumber=467087 | mname=Regulbium | year=2007 | access-date=18 May 2014}}</ref> The plaque effectively records the establishment of the fort, since it commemorates the construction of two of its principal features, the ''[[basilica]]'' and the ''[[sacellum]]'', or [[shrine]], both being parts of the headquarters building, or ''principia'':

{{Quote|text=this [was] the first time the inscribed phrase ''aedes principiorum'' [could] be&nbsp;... identified with the official shrine of [a Roman military] headquarters building, hitherto unmentioned in any inscription&nbsp;... [It was] also the first certain&nbsp;... application of the name ''basilica'' to [this element of the building].|author=[[Ian Richmond]]|title=''The Antiquaries Journal'', 1961<ref>Richmond, I. A. (1961), "A New Building-Inscription from the Saxon-Shore Fort at Reculver, Kent", ''The Antiquaries Journal'' '''41'''(3–4), pp.&nbsp;224–8, quoted in {{harvnb|Philp|2005|p=212}}; {{harvnb|Philp|1969a|page=}}.</ref>}}

These structures were found by archaeologists, together with probable officers' quarters, barracks and a [[Thermae|bath house]].{{sfn|Philp|2005|pp=54–9, 60–3, 73–80}}{{refn|A reconstruction of the fort is illustrated at {{harvnb|Wilmott|2012|p=23}}.|group=Fn}} A Roman oven found {{convert|200|ft|m|0}} south-east of the fort was probably used for drying food such as [[Wheat|corn]] and fish; its main chamber measured about 16&nbsp;feet (4.9&nbsp;m) by 15&nbsp;feet (4.8&nbsp;m) overall.{{sfn|Philp|2005|pp=92–5}}

[[File:Skizze bi regulbium.jpg|thumb|alt=refer to caption|Reconstruction of the plaque recording the establishment of the fort{{sfn|Philp|1969a|p=}}]]
The fort was located on a low hill, beyond which a long promontory then projected north-eastwards into the sea and formed the north-eastern extremity of mainland Kent: thus it offered observation on all sides, including both the [[Thames Estuary]] and the [[sea lane]] later known as the [[Wantsum Channel]], which lay between it and the [[Isle of Thanet]].<ref>{{harvnb|Jessup|1936|p=188}}; {{harvnb|Bagshaw|1847|p=224}}.</ref>{{refn|{{harvnb|Philp|2005|loc=Fig.&nbsp;4}}, shows a conjectured Roman coastline around Reculver, where the fort is located near the root of a promontory projecting about {{convert|1.25|mi|km|0}} north-eastwards into the sea. This promontory is defined on its north-western side by a long inlet of the sea, and on its south-eastern side by the Wantsum Channel, and is made a peninsula by an inlet of the Wantsum Channel immediately south of the Roman fort.|group=Fn}} It was probably built by soldiers of the ''Cohors I Baetasiorum'', originally from [[Germania Inferior|Lower Germany]], who had previously served at the Roman fort of ''[[Alauna (Maryport)|Alauna]]'' at [[Maryport]] in [[Cumbria]] at least until the early 180s, since tiles recovered from the fort are stamped "CIB".{{sfn|Philp|2005|pp=224–5}} The ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]'', a Roman administrative document from the early 5th century, also records the presence of the ''Cohors I Baetasiorum'' at Reculver, then known as ''Regulbium''.<ref name=Notitia>{{harvnb|Cotterill|1993|pp=227–39 (esp.&nbsp;235)}}; {{harvnb|Philp|2005|pp=227–8}}.</ref> There must also have been a harbour nearby in Roman times,{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=3}} and, though this has not yet been found, it was probably near to the fort's southern or eastern side.<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|page=3}}; {{harvnb|Harris|2001|page=32}}.</ref>{{refn|"The evidence suggests that [most of the Saxon Shore forts] were constructed c. 225–290, and this means that the system was conceived about sixty years before the historical records refer to Germanic raiding. The discrepancy cannot be explained if they were a purpose-built defensive system, but it can be explained if they were a series of state trans-shipment centres."{{sfn|Cotterill|1993|p=238}} {{harvnb|Philp|2005|p=229}}, suggests on archaeological grounds that there may have been "a direct link between the ''Cohors I Baetasiorum'' and the ''[[Classis Britannica]]'' [or "British Fleet"] at ''Regulbium'' and this could indicate that they shared the fort."|group=Fn}}

The walls of the fort originally stood about {{convert|14.8|ft|m|1}} high and were {{convert|10|ft|m|0}} thick at their base, reducing to {{nowrap|{{convert|8|ft|m|1}}}} at the top; they were reinforced internally by an earthen bank.<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|p=14}}; {{harvnb|Wilmott|2012|p=20}}.</ref> The entrance to the fort's headquarters building faced north, indicating that the main gate was on the north side, facing the eponymous promontory and the sea.{{sfn|Harris|2001|p=33}} The north wall has been lost to the sea, along with the adjoining part of the east wall and most of the west wall; the east wall is most complete and includes the remains of the eastern gateway and guard post.<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|pp=15, 32–6}}; {{harvnb|Wilmott|2012|p=20}}.</ref> Parts of the surviving walls are all that remains of the fort above ground, and all have suffered from stone-robbing, especially near the south-western corner.{{sfn|Philp|2005|pp=14, 204}}{{refn|Stone from the fort was presumably used in the medieval settlement at Reculver as well as the church there; it may have been taken for use in the archiepiscopal residence at [[Ford Palace]], about {{convert|2.6|mi|km|1}} south-west of Reculver, and in the Davis Gate (or "Barbican Gate") at [[Sandwich, Kent|Sandwich]] in the early 16th century; and there are records of its frequent use in the church of All Saints at [[Birchington-on-Sea]], until at least 1584.<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|pp=14, 204}}; {{harvnb|Clarke|2010|p=159}}; {{harvnb|Barrett|2005|pp=31–2}}.</ref>|group=Fn}} The walls were originally faced with [[Rag-stone|ragstone]], but very little of this remains: otherwise only the cores of the walls are visible, consisting mostly of flint and concrete and standing only {{convert|8.6|ft|m|1}} high at their highest.{{sfn|Philp|2005|pp=14–5}}

[[File:Roman Wall, Reculver Roman Fort - geograph.org.uk - 1470820.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|left|alt=refer to caption|Part of the Roman south wall of ''[[Regulbium]]'' fort, seen from its south-eastern corner]]
Roman forts were normally accompanied by a civilian settlement, or ''[[vicus]]'': at Reculver this lay outside the north and west sides of the fort, much of it in areas now lost to the sea, and was extensive, perhaps covering "some ten hectares [25&nbsp;acres] in all."<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|pp=95–7}}; {{harvnb|Philp|2009|p=174}}.</ref> In 1936 R.F. Jessup noted that "a Roman building with a [[hypocaust]] and [[Tessellation|tesselated]] [floor once] stood considerably to the northward of the fort":{{sfn|Jessup|1936|p=188}} this structure had been observed by the {{nowrap|17th- to}} 18th-century antiquarian [[John Battely]],{{sfn|Duncombe|1774|pp=56–7}} and was probably "an external bath {{nowrap|house&nbsp;...}} relating to [an early phase of] the fort."{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=96}} In the same area Battely described "several [[cistern]]s" between 10&nbsp;and 12&nbsp;feet (3–3.7&nbsp;m) square, lined with oak planks and sealed at the bottom with [[Puddling (engineering)|puddled clay]]. He believed that these were for storing rainwater, and noted that a Roman [[strigil]], which would have been used in a bath house, had been found in a similar cistern at Reculver; he also observed that "such a multitude [of cisterns] has been discovered, almost in our memory, as proves that the ancient inhabitants of the place were very numerous."{{sfn|Duncombe|1774|pp=57–60, 116}} In the 20th century twelve [[Water well|well]]s of the Roman period were identified to the west of the fort, ten of which were square; all were cut into the hard layer of sandstone below the soft sandstone of the [[Thanet Beds]], thus tapping into the [[water table]].{{sfn|Philp|2005|pp=95–6}}{{refn|Three female skeletons have been found in the Roman wells, complete with jewellery: "[i]t seems clear that these female skeletons do not represent orthodox burials, nor accidents, and it is likely that the three women were victims and that their bodies&nbsp;... were thrown into these&nbsp;... wells and never recovered."{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=96}}|group=Fn}} These and other 20th-century finds from the Roman period extend to {{convert|1120|ft|m|1}} west of the fort, and date to a period between 170 and 360, roughly coinciding with the period of occupation at the fort itself.{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=96}}

At least 10&nbsp;infant burials have been found within the fort, all of babies, of which six were associated with Roman buildings: five sets of infant remains were found within the foundations and walls of buildings, as were coins dating from 270 to 300&nbsp;AD.<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|pp=75–7, 86–7, 225}}; {{harvnb|Philp|1966|page=}}; {{harvnb|Philp|1969b|page=}}; {{harvnb|Merrifield|1987|pp=50–7 (esp. 51)}}.</ref> It was suspected that more such burials might be found in the walls of a building in the south-western area of the fort if it were excavated further.{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=86}}{{refn|Three infant skeletons discovered in the structure in the south-western area of the fort were "found incidentally in the only two critical cuts made through the walls of the building and statistically, at least, it seems likely that others may exist in the much longer lengths of walls not examined."{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=86}} Two of these burials are illustrated at {{harvnb|Philp|2005|loc=Plate&nbsp;XXXVIII}}.|group=Fn}} A baby's feeding bottle was also found in an excavated floor within {{convert|10|ft|m|0}} of one of the infant skeletons, though it may have been unconnected with the burials.{{sfn|Philp|1966|p=}} The babies were probably buried in the buildings as [[Sacrifice#Human sacrifice|ritual sacrifices]], but it is unknown whether they were selected for burial because they were already dead, perhaps stillborn, or if they were buried alive or killed for the purpose.<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|page=225}}; {{harvnb|Merrifield|1987|p=51}}.</ref>{{refn|"The Romans officially condemned human sacrifice&nbsp;... Human life was cheap on the frontier, however, and Roman auxiliaries could be as barbarous as those they fought&nbsp;... Even in the most civilised parts of [Roman] Britain, the authorities seem on occasion to have turned a blind eye to infant sacrifice, which may of course have been surreptitious."{{sfn|Merrifield|1987|p=51}}|group=Fn}} A local tale subsequently developed that the grounds of the fort were haunted by the sound of a crying baby.<ref>{{harvnb|Marsden|Horsler|Kelleher|2005|p=74}}; {{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2009/oct/30/haunted-halloween-spooky-uk |title=Ten spooky places to scare yourself |newspaper=The Guardian |date=30 October 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140409041510/http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2009/oct/30/haunted-halloween-spooky-uk |archive-date=9 April 2014 |access-date=20 May 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Towards the end of the 3rd century a Roman naval commander named [[Carausius]], who later declared himself emperor in Britain, was given the task of clearing pirates from the sea between Britain and the European mainland.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/carausiu.htm | title=Carausius (286/7–293 A.D.) | author=DiMaio, M. Jr. | website=An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and their Families | publisher=Loyola University Chicago | date=28 October 1996 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140521104630/http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/carausiu.htm | archive-date=21 May 2014 | url-status=live | access-date=21 May 2014}}</ref> In so doing he established a new chain of command, the British part of which was later to pass under the control of a [[Count of the Saxon Shore]]. The ''Notitia Dignitatum'' shows that the fort at Reculver became part of this arrangement, and its location meant that it lay at the "main point of contact in the system [of Saxon Shore forts]".{{sfn|Cotterill|1993|p=236}} Archaeological evidence indicates that it was abandoned in the 370s.<ref name=Notitia />

===Medieval===
[[File:Part of the south wall of the ruined church at Reculver.jpg|thumb|upright=1.25|alt=refer to caption|Part of the south wall of the 7th-century church, incorporating Roman brick tiles]]
By the 7th century Reculver was part of a landed estate of the [[History of Anglo-Saxon England|Anglo-Saxon]] [[Kingdom of Kent|kings of Kent]], possibly with a royal toll-station or a "significant coastal trading settlement,"{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=73}} given the types and large quantity of coins found there.{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=73}}{{refn|While "[it] must be certain that the Roman fort had a supporting harbour, probably a natural feature improved by quays and jetties",{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=3}} "[the] quantity of seventh- and eighth-century coins picked up from Reculver and its vicinity is paralleled [in England] only at ''Hamwic'' [Anglo-Saxon Southampton]: finds include gold ''thrymsas'' and some 50 sceattas, with contemporary Merovingian coins and a small group of Northumbrian issues&nbsp;... Almost certainly there is some connection with Reculver's position on a major trading route".{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=73}}|group=Fn}} Other early Anglo-Saxon finds include a fragment of a gilt bronze brooch, or ''[[Fibula (brooch)|fibula]]'', which was originally circular and set with coloured stones or glass, a [[claw beaker]] and pottery.<ref>{{harvnb|Roach Smith|1850|loc=pp.&nbsp;213–4 & Plate&nbsp;7, Fig.&nbsp;18}}; {{cite web | url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6539 | title=Keystone garnet disc brooch from Reculver | author=Exploring Kent's Past | publisher=Kent County Council | date=n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605154120/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6539 | archive-date=5 June 2015 | url-status=live | access-date=5 June 2015|postscript=;}} {{cite web | url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6549 | title=AS claw beaker, Reculver | author=Exploring Kent's Past | publisher=Kent County Council | date=n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605154246/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6549 | archive-date=5 June 2015 | url-status=live | access-date=5 June 2015|postscript=;}} {{cite web | url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6537 | title=Anglo Saxon Pagan pottery from Reculver | author=Exploring Kent's Past | publisher=Kent County Council | date=n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605154419/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6537 | archive-date=5 June 2015 | url-status=live | access-date=5 June 2015}}</ref>{{refn|"[The Reculver fibula] belongs to a class of ornaments&nbsp;... remarkable for peculiarities which seem almost to restrict them to the early Kentish Saxons. [John] Battely speaks of the fibulæ found at Reculver [in the late 17th and early 18th centuries], as being almost innumerable; some of these&nbsp;... were constructed with much artistic skill and good workmanship; they were either enameled, or set with precious stones."{{sfn|Roach Smith|1850|p=214}}|group=Fn}} Antiquarians such as the 18th-century clergyman [[John Duncombe (writer)|John Duncombe]] believed that King [[Æthelberht of Kent]] moved his royal court there from Canterbury in about 597, and built a palace on the site of the Roman ruins.{{sfn|Duncombe|1784|pp=71–2, 74}} However, archaeological excavation has shown no evidence of this; Æthelberht's household would have been peripatetic, and the story has been described as probably a "pious legend".<ref>{{harvnb|Gough|2014|p=191}}; {{harvnb|Brooks|1989|p=67}}.</ref>{{refn|The Roman remains at Reculver would have been "the only substantial building for miles around",{{sfn|Gough|2014|p=186}} but "Anglo-Saxon kings seem to have shown little interest in establishing themselves in old Roman forts."{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=73}} "An itinerant royal household eating and drinking the food surpluses collected at [the king's] own estates and those of his subjects&nbsp;... lies at the core of the Kentish kingdom&nbsp;..."{{sfn|Brooks|1989|p=67}}|group=Fn}} A church was built on the site of the Roman fort in about 669, when King [[Ecgberht of Kent]] granted land for the foundation of a monastery, which was dedicated to [[Mary (mother of Jesus)|St Mary]].<ref name=669Refs>{{harvnb|Garmonsway|1972|pp=34–5}}; {{harvnb|Fletcher|1965|pages=16–31}}; {{harvnb|Page|1926|pages=141–2}}; {{harvnb|Kelly|2008|pages=71–2}}.</ref>

The monastery developed as the centre of a "large estate, a manor and a parish",{{sfn|Gough|2014|p=187}} and, by the early 9th century, it had become "extremely wealthy",{{sfn|Blair|2005|p=123}} but it then fell under the control of the [[Archbishop of Canterbury|archbishops of Canterbury]]. In 811 Archbishop [[Wulfred]] is recorded as having deprived the monastery of some of its land,<ref>{{harvnb|Kelly|2008|p=80}}; {{harvnb|Sawyer|1968|loc=S&nbsp;1264}}; {{cite web|url=http://www.esawyer.org.uk/charter/1264.html# |title=S 1264 |year=2014 |website=The Electronic Sawyer |publisher=King's College London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140421102401/http://www.esawyer.org.uk/charter/1264.html |archive-date=21 April 2014 |access-date=22 May 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref> and soon after it featured in a "monumental showdown"{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=80}} between Wulfred and King [[Coenwulf of Mercia]] over the control of monasteries.<ref>{{harvnb|Kelly|2008|p=80}}; {{harvnb|Blair|2005|pp=130–1}}.</ref> In 838 control of all monasteries under Canterbury's authority was passed to the kings of [[Wessex]], by the agreement of Archbishop [[Ceolnoth]] in exchange for protection from [[Viking]] attacks.<ref>{{ODNBweb|id=4999|title=Ceolnoth}} Retrieved 22 May 2014; {{harvnb|Blair|2005|p=124}}; {{harvnb|Kelly|2008|pages=81–2}}; {{harvnb|Brooks|1979|pp=1–20 (esp. 12)}}; {{harvnb|Brooks|1984|pages=203–4}}; {{harvnb|Kerr|1982|pages=192–94}}.</ref> By the 10th century the monastery at Reculver and its estate were both royal property: they were given back to the archbishops of Canterbury in 949 by King [[Eadred]] of England, at which time the estate included [[Hoath]] and [[Herne, Kent|Herne]], and land at [[Chilmington Green|Chilmington]], about {{convert|23.5|mi|km|1}} to the south-west, and in the west of the Isle of Thanet.{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=82}}

By 1066 the monastery had become a [[parish church]].{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=82}} However, in 1086 Reculver was named in the [[Domesday Book]] of 1086 as a [[Hundred (county subdivision)|hundred]], and the manor was valued at £42.7s. (£42.35).{{sfn|Williams|Martin|2002|p=8}}{{refn|This value can be compared with the £20 due to the archbishop from the manor of [[Maidstone]] and £50 from the [[Ancient borough|borough]] of [[Sandwich, Kent|Sandwich]].{{sfn|Williams|Martin|2002|p=8}} Of the £42.7s. from Reculver, £7.7s. (£7.35) was from an unspecified source. While Hoath, Herne and western parts of the Isle of Thanet belonged to the monastery in the Anglo-Saxon period, and remained attached to the church long after 1086, of these only Reculver is mentioned by name in Domesday Book: {{nowrap|"[as]}} the name [Reculver] is used here, it means something larger than the parish but much smaller than the thirteenth-century manor of Reculver. It is fairly sure to have included Hoath ...; it may also have included the adjoining part of Thanet, [including] All Saints ... and St Nicholas-at-Wade ... [The separate manor of ''Nortone'' is] Herne ... under another name."{{sfn|Flight|2010|p=162}}|group=Fn}} Included in the Domesday account for the manor, as well as the church, farmland, a mill, [[Salt evaporation pond|salt pans]] and a fishery, are 90&nbsp;[[Serfdom#Villeins|villeins]] and 25&nbsp;[[Serfdom#Bordars and cottagers|bordars]]: these numbers can be multiplied four or five times to account for dependents, as they only represent "adult male heads of households".{{sfn|Eales|1992|p=21}}{{refn|The multiplication indicated by Eales would give a [[peasant]] population for the whole of the estate centred on Reculver in 1086 of 460–575&nbsp;people. The mill was probably a [[watermill]], near Brook Farm, and King Eadred's charter of 949 mentions a mill-[[Creek (tidal)|creek]] in the area.<ref>{{harvnb|Gough|1992|pages=94–5}}; {{harvnb|Kelly|2008|page=74}}; {{harvnb|Sawyer|1968|loc=S&nbsp;546}}; {{cite web |url=http://www.esawyer.org.uk/charter/546.html |title=S&nbsp;546 |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2014 |website=The Electronic Sawyer |publisher=King's College London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140331065536/http://www.esawyer.org.uk/charter/546.html |archive-date=31 March 2014 |url-status=live |access-date=19 May 2014}}</ref> There are numerous medieval salt working sites in the area to the south and east of Reculver, many of which lie on land belonging to Reculver in the medieval period, for example at {{gbmappingsmall|TR23316797}}.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MWX19398|title=Medieval salt mound|author=Exploring Kent's Past|publisher=Kent County Council| date= n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150519195211/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MWX19398 | archive-date=19 May 2015 | url-status=live | access-date=5 June 2015}}</ref>|group=Fn}} At that time, although Domesday Book records that Reculver belonged to the archbishop of Canterbury in both 1066 and 1086, in reality it must again have been lost to him, since [[William the Conqueror]] is recorded as having returned it, among other churches and properties, to the archbishop at his death.{{sfn|Flight|2010|pp=162, 217}}{{refn|The record states that the king "reddidit ecclesiae Christi omnes fere terras antiquis et modernis temporibus a iure ipsius ecclesiae ablatas&nbsp;... Haec omnia reddidit&nbsp;... gratis et sine ullo pretio." ("returned to Christ Church almost all the lands, its by right from ancient and modern times, that had been removed&nbsp;... He returned all these things&nbsp;... free and without any remuneration.").{{sfn|Flight|2010|p=217}} Among these, Reculver is listed only by name, while churches elsewhere are identified as monasteries.|group=Fn}} In the 13th century Reculver was a parish of "exceptional wealth",{{sfn|Graham|1944|p=1}} and the considerable enlargement of the church building during the [[Middle Ages]] indicates that the settlement had become a "thriving township",{{sfn|Gough|2014|p=187}} with "dozens of houses".{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=11}}{{refn|{{harvnb|Hasted|1800|pages=}} refers to Reculver as a "borough",{{sfn|Hasted|1800|pp=109–25}} but it is not listed as an [[ancient borough]] in Beresford, M. & Finberg, H.P.R., ''English Medieval Boroughs A Hand-List'', David & Charles, 1973. However, [[tithing]]s in Kent were known as "borghs", a word cognate with "borough", but derived from "''borh''", a "pledge".{{sfn|Baker|1966|p=11(note)}}|group=Fn}} In 1310 Archbishop [[Robert Winchelsey]] of Canterbury noted that the population of the whole parish in the time of his predecessor [[John Peckham]] ([[Wiktionary:circa|c.]]&nbsp;1230–1292) had numbered more than 3,000.<ref>{{harvnb|Gough|1984|p=19}}; {{harvnb|Duncombe|1784|p=136}}.</ref>{{refn|{{harvnb|Graham|1944|p=10}}, gives the figure for the population in the late 13th century as "over a thousand", but the relevant [[primary source]] as edited at {{harvnb|Duncombe|1784|p=136}}, gives it as "trium millium vel amplius" ("three thousand or more") and growing.|group=Fn}} For this reason, and because the parish was also large geographically, he converted [[Chapelry|chapelries]] at Herne and, on the Isle of Thanet, [[St Nicholas-at-Wade]] and [[Shuart, Kent|Shuart]] into parishes, though the church at Hoath remained a [[Perpetual curate|perpetual curacy]] belonging to Reculver parish until 1960.<ref>{{harvnb|Gough|1992|pages=91–2}}; {{harvnb|Gough|1984|pp=19–20}}; {{harvnb|Lewis|1848|pp=645–52}}</ref> Records for the [[poll tax]] of 1377 show that there were then 364&nbsp;individuals of 14&nbsp;years and above, not including "honest beggars", in the reduced parish of Reculver, who paid a total of £6.1s.4d. (£6.07) towards the tax.{{sfn|Fenwick|1998|loc=Introduction & p.&nbsp;393}}{{refn|The taxpayers of Hoath were presumably included with those of Reculver, since Hoath is not listed separately.{{sfn|Fenwick|1998|p=393}} An estimated 5% of the English population was exempt from or evaded the poll tax of 1377.{{sfn|Russell|1966|p=16}} Further, the population of England as a whole declined by about 40% between 1347 and 1377 because of the [[Black Death in England|Black Death]].{{sfn|Russell|1966|pp=16–7}}|group=Fn}}

===Decline and loss to the sea===
[[File:1685mapRoachS.jpg|thumb|upright=1.8|left|alt=refer to caption|Estate map of Reculver, 1685:<ref>{{harvnb|Roach Smith|1850|loc=map: between pp.&nbsp;192–3; description: p.&nbsp;193}}.</ref> the church, the "chapel-house", the Roman fort and the former town of Reculver, described as "Village-lyke" in 1540{{sfn|Hearne|1711|p=137}}]]
The thriving medieval township depended partly on its position on a maritime trade route through the Wantsum Channel, already present in Anglo-Saxon times and exemplified by Reculver's membership of the [[Cinque Ports|Cinque Port]] of [[Sandwich, Kent|Sandwich]] later in the Middle Ages.<ref>{{harvnb|Kelly|2008|pp=73–5}}; {{harvnb|Clarke|2010|p=61}}.</ref> The importance of the Wantsum Channel was such that, when the [[River Thames]] froze in 1269, trade between Sandwich and London had to be carried out overland.{{sfn|Perkins|2007|p=254}} Historical records for the channel are sparse after 1269, perhaps "because the route was so well known as to be taken for granted [in the Middle Ages], the whole waterway from London to Sandwich being occasionally spoken of as the 'Thames'".<ref>{{harvnb|Perkins|2007|p=254}}, citing {{citation|last=Scott-Robertson|first=W.|title=Thanet's Insulation|journal=Archaeologia Cantiana|volume=XII|year=1878|page=338|url=http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Pub/ArchCant/Vol.012%20-%201878/012-21.pdf}}.</ref> But silting and [[Land reclamation|inning]] had closed the channel to trading vessels sailing along it by about 1460 or soon after, and the first bridge was built over it at [[Sarre, Kent|Sarre]] in 1485, since ferries could no longer operate reliably across it.{{sfn|Perkins|2007|pp=254, 258}}{{refn|The [[Gough Map]] of about 1360 and a map by [[Thomas Elmham]] of about 1414 both show the Wantsum Channel as fully open.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.goughmap.org |title=Linguistic Geographies: The Gough Map of Great Britain |publisher=King's College London |year=2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140517150954/http://goughmap.org/ |archive-date=17 May 2014 |url-status=live |access-date=19 June 2014 }}; {{harvnb|Rollason|1982|p=10}}.</ref> When the bridge was built "it was stipulated that the arches had to be big enough for boats and lighters to pass, in the hope that 'the water shall happen to increase'".<ref>{{harvnb|Perkins|2007|p=258}}, quoting {{citation|last=Scott-Robertson|first=W.|title=Thanet's Insulation|journal=Archaeologia Cantiana|volume=XII|year=1878|page=340|url=https://archive.org/stream/archaeologiacant12kent/archaeologiacant12kent_djvu.txt}}.</ref> A late-15th century note in the archives of Canterbury Cathedral describes the motivations for, and the provisions of, an act of Parliament{{which|date=December 2024}} that gave permission for the building of the bridge: it states that {{nowrap|"[r]ecently}} the channel has become so silted up that the ferry can no longer cross it, except for an hour during the high spring tides."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=054-cadchant_8&cid=-1#-1|title=Dean and Chapter Archive|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|publisher=The National Archives|year=2014|at=CCA-DCc-ChAnt/T/31|access-date=23 April 2014}}</ref>|group=Fn}}

Reculver was also diminished by [[coastal erosion]]. By 1540, when [[John Leland (antiquary)|John Leland]] recorded a visit there, the coastline to the north had receded to within little more than a quarter of a mile (400&nbsp;m) of the "Towne [which] at this tyme [was] but Village lyke".<ref>{{harvnb|Hearne|1711|page=137}}; {{harvnb|Jessup|1936|page=187}}.</ref> Soon afterwards, in 1576, [[William Lambarde]] described Reculver as "poore and simple".{{sfn|Lambarde|1596|p=207}} In 1588 there were 165&nbsp;communicants&nbsp;– people taking part in services of [[Eucharist|holy communion]] at the church&nbsp;– and in 1640 there were 169,{{sfn|Hasted|1800|pp=109–25}} but a map of about 1630 shows that the church then stood only about {{convert|500|ft|m|0}} from the shore.{{sfn|Jessup|1936|p=189}}{{refn|Part of this map is illustrated in {{harvnb|Dowker|1878b|p=}}, facing page&nbsp;8. Its essential features are shown superimposed on an [[Ordnance Survey]] map at {{harvnb|Jessup|1936|p=189}}.|group=Fn}} In January 1658 the local [[Justice of the Peace#History|justices of the peace]] were petitioned concerning "encroachments of the sea&nbsp;... [which had] since Michaelmas last [29&nbsp;September 1657] encroached on the land near six rods {{nowrap|[{{convert|99|ft|m|0}}}}], and will doubtless do more harm".{{sfn|Gough|2002|p=204}} The village's failure to support two "beer shops" in the 1660s points clearly to a declining population,{{sfn|Gough|2014|p=188}} and the village was mostly abandoned around the end of the 18th century, its residents moving to [[Hillborough]], about {{convert|1.25|mi|km|0}} south-west of Reculver but within the same parish.<ref>{{harvnb|Kelly|2008|page=67}}; {{harvnb|Harris|2001|page=36}}.</ref>{{refn|Writing in 1787, [[John Pridden]] described the only fare available at Reculver as "dry biscuit, bad ale, sour cheese, or weak moonshine".{{sfn|Pridden|1787|p=164}}|group=Fn}}

[[File:Reculver vicarage as inn.jpg|thumb|alt=The vicarage used as an inn|The redundant vicarage at Reculver in use as a temporary replacement for the Hoy and Anchor Inn, in 1809:{{sfn|Mot|1809a}} the original inn stood a short distance north of the church and west of the Roman fort.]]
Concern about erosion of the cliff on which the church stood, and the possible inundation of the village, had led the commissioners of sewers to install costly sea defences consisting of planking and piling before 1783, when it was reported that the commissioners had adopted a scheme proposed by [[Thomas Hyde Page|Sir Thomas Page]] to protect the church: the sea defences had proven counter-productive, since sea water collected behind them and continued to undermine the cliff.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Saturday and Sunday's posts |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000317/17830721/007/0003 |newspaper=Northampton Mercury |date=21 July 1783 |access-date=8 May 2014 |url-access=subscription |postscript=;}} {{harvnb|Duncombe|1784|pp=77, 90(note)}}.</ref> Before this, according to John Duncombe, "the commissioners of sewers, and the occupiers who pay scots, [had] no view nor interest but to secure the level [ground], which must be overflowed when the hill is washed away."{{sfn|Duncombe|1784|p=90(note)}} By 1787 Reculver had "dwindled into an insignificant village, thinly decked with the cottages of fishermen and smugglers."<ref>{{harvnb|Pridden|1787|p=163}}; {{harvnb|Hasted|1800|pp=109–25}}.</ref>{{refn|In 1821 Reculver was described as a principal station for the "Smuggling Preventive Service".<ref>{{harvnb|Nepos|1821|p=319}}; {{cite web|url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/coastguard.htm |title=Coastguard |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]] |year=2009 |at=1.1 Before the Coastguard |access-date=19 April 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111212175449/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/coastguard.htm |archive-date=12 December 2011 }}</ref> Records of the coast's erosion between about 1540 and 1800 are represented graphically at {{harvnb|Gough|2002|p=205}}.|group=Fn}}

{{Quote|[At about this time,] from the present shore as far as a place called the Black Rock, seen at lowwater mark, where tradition says, a parish church once stood, there [were] found quantities of tiles, bricks, fragments of walls, tesselated pavements, and other marks of a ruinated town, and the household furniture, dress, and equipment of the horses belonging to the inhabitants of it, [were] continually found among the sands&nbsp;...|author=[[Edward Hasted]]|title=''The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent: Volume 9'', 1800{{sfn|Hasted|1800|pp=109–25}}{{refn|After a very low tide in 1784, a writer to ''[[The Gentleman's Magazine]]'' reported that, "the Black Rock (as it is called) being left dry, the foundations of the ancient parish church were discovered, which had not been seen for 40&nbsp;years before."{{sfn|Cantianus|1784|p=87}}|group=Fn}}}}

[[File:The Church The Cross and The Pub Reculver.jpg|thumb|upright=1.4|left|alt=The Reculver Millennium Cross monument of 2000|Reculver towers, framed by the Millennium Cross of 2000 and the King Ethelbert Inn]]
In September 1804 a high tide and strong winds led to the destruction of five houses, one of which was "an ancient building, immediately opposite the public house, and had the appearance of having been part of some monastic erection".<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Canterbury, September 28 |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000235/18040928/009/0004 |newspaper=Kentish Gazette |date=28 September 1804 |access-date=8 May 2014 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> The following year, according to a set of notes written by the [[Parish (Church of England)#Parish clerk|parish clerk]] John Brett, "Reculver Church and willage stood in safety",{{sfn|Gough|1983|p=135}} but in 1806 the sea began to encroach on the village, and in 1807 the local farmers dismantled the sea defences, after which "the village became a total [wreck] to the mercy of the sea."{{sfn|Gough|1983|p=135}}{{refn|The farmers sold the "sea side stone work&nbsp;... to the Margate pieor Compney for a foundation for the new pier and the timber by [auction] as It was good oak fit for their [own] use".{{sfn|Gough|1983|p=135}} An advertisement in the ''Kentish Gazette'', Tuesday 7 July 1807, announced that "about 300&nbsp;sound oak posts" were to be auctioned at Reculver on 16 July by order of the Commissioners for Sewers.<ref>{{cite news|last=Staines|first=W.|date=7 July 1807|title=Sewers. Rushborne Sea-Wall|url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000235/18070707/011/0001|newspaper=Kentish Gazette|access-date=5 May 2014|url-access=subscription }}</ref> A similar advertisement of 12 July 1808 announced an auction of "oak post, and&nbsp;... a quantity of large stone".<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=To be sold by auction, by White and Sons |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000235/18080712/023/0004 |newspaper=Kentish Gazette |date=12 July 1808 |access-date=5 May 2014|url-access=subscription }}</ref>|group=Fn}}

A further scheme to protect the cliff and church was proposed by [[John Rennie the Elder|John Rennie]], but a decision was taken on 12 January 1808 to demolish the church.<ref>{{harvnb|Duncombe|1784|pp=77, 90(note)}}; {{harvnb|Anon.|1808|loc=col. 1310}}; {{harvnb|Anon.|2011|p=56}}.</ref> By March 1809, erosion of the cliff had brought it to within {{convert|12|ft|m|0}} of the church, and demolition was begun in September that year.<ref>{{harvnb|Mot|1809b|p=802}}; {{harvnb|Cozens|1809|p=906}}; {{harvnb|Anon.|1856|p=315}}; {{cite web|url=http://archives.canterbury-cathedral.org/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=CCA-U3-99|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|title=Reculver, St Mary Parish Records|publisher=Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Cathedral|year=2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140519102622/http://archives.canterbury-cathedral.org/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=CCA-U3-99 |archive-date=19 May 2014 |url-status=live |access-date=19 May 2014|postscript=;}} {{harvnb|Harris|2001|p=36}}.</ref>{{refn|Some sources date the church's demolition to 1805,<ref>{{harvnb|Jessup|1936|p=182}}; {{harvnb|Kerr|1982|p=194}}; {{harvnb|Kelly|2008|p=67}}.</ref> but a meeting to discuss the building's future was held there on 12 January 1808;{{sfn|Anon.|1808|loc=col. 1310}} a detailed description of the standing church, including pleas for its preservation, was submitted to ''The Gentleman's Magazine'' on 3 March 1809;{{sfn|Mot|1809b|pp=801–2}} ''The Gentleman's Magazine'' reported in 1809 and 1856 that the church's demolition began in September 1809;<ref>{{harvnb|Cozens|1809|p=906}}; {{harvnb|Anon.|1856|p=315}}.</ref> and the year of the church's demolition is given as 1809 in the archive of Canterbury Cathedral.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://archives.canterbury-cathedral.org/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=CCA-U3-99|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|title=Reculver, St Mary Parish Records|publisher=Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Cathedral|year=2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140519102622/http://archives.canterbury-cathedral.org/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=CCA-U3-99 |archive-date=19 May 2014 |url-status=live |access-date=19 May 2014}}</ref>|group=Fn|name=demolitiondate}} [[Trinity House]] intervened to ensure that the towers were preserved as a [[Landmark|navigational aid]], and in 1810 it bought what was left of the structure for £100 and built the first [[groyne]]s, designed to protect the cliff on which the ruined church stands.<ref name=TrinityHouse1810>{{harvnb|Jessup|1936|p=187}}; {{cite web|url=http://www.canterburytimes.co.uk/Modern-church-proud-links-Roman-times/story-20824377-detail/story.html|author=Crudgington, L.|title=Modern church proud of links to Roman times|website=Canterbury Times|date=18 March 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407102210/http://www.canterburytimes.co.uk/Modern-church-proud-links-Roman-times/story-20824377-detail/story.html | archive-date=7 April 2014 | url-status=dead |access-date=19 May 2014 |postscript=;}} {{harvnb|Hunt|2011|pp=23–4}}.</ref> The [[Rectory|vicarage]] was abandoned at the same time as the church, or a little later,{{sfn|Gough|2014|p=189}}{{refn|In a letter written in March 1809 to ''The Gentleman's Magazine'', but published in September, T. Mot wrote that the vicarage was "one of the most mean structures ever appropriated to such a purpose".{{sfn|Mot|1809b|p=802}} Another letter to the same magazine described the vicarage as follows: "[It has] the appearance of some antiquity; it consists of two miserable rooms on the ground floor and a like number above, with no other conveniences or appurtenances of any kind. In fact was it not for the stone porch with which the entrance is decorated, it would pass only for the cottage of a labourer."{{sfn|Gough|2014|p=189}}|group=Fn}} and a replacement parish church was built at Hillborough, opening in 1813.<ref>{{harvnb|Anon.|1856|p=317 & note}}; {{cite web | url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE25051 | title=Parish church of St Mary the Virgin, Hillborough | author=Exploring Kent's Past | publisher=Kent County Council | date=n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150520110854/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE25051 | archive-date=20 May 2015 | url-status=live | access-date=5 June 2015}}</ref>

[[File:Reculver from Country Park.jpg|thumb|upright=1.7|alt=refer to caption|Reculver viewed from the cliff-top in the country park in 2009: until the late 18th century the centre of Reculver village was slightly left of centre in the area shown.]]
After the sea undermined the foundations of the Hoy and Anchor Inn at Reculver in January 1808, the building was taken down and the redundant vicarage was used as a temporary replacement under the same name.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Canterbury, January 19 |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000235/18080119/023/0004 |newspaper=Kentish Gazette |date=19 January 1808 |access-date=8 May 2014|url-access=subscription |postscript=; }} {{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Canterbury, January 26 |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000235/18080126/016/0004 |newspaper=Kentish Gazette |date=26 January 1808 |access-date=8 May 2014|url-access=subscription |postscript=; }} {{harvnb|Lewis|1911|p=62}}.</ref>{{refn|T.&nbsp;Mot's letter in ''The Gentleman's Magazine'', written in March 1809, ends with the observation that the "jolly landlord revelled with his noisy guests, where late the venerable Vicar smoked his lonely pipe."{{sfn|Mot|1809b|p=802}} Another correspondent writing to the same magazine in 1856 reported that this "desecration did not prosper. According to the testimony of some of the present inhabitants of Reculver, nothing went well with the publican: his family was perpetually disturbed by strange noises and pranks&nbsp;... and he was eventually obliged to retire, a ruined man."{{sfn|Anon.|1856|p=316 & note}}|group=Fn}} Although it was reported in 1800 that there were then only five or six houses left in the village,{{sfn|Hasted|1800|pp=109–25}} a new Hoy and Anchor Inn was built by 1809,{{sfn|Cozens|1809|p=907}} and this was renamed as the King Ethelbert Inn by 1838.<ref>{{harvnb|Gough|2014|p=190}}; {{cite news |author=Collard, J. & R. |title=We, the undersigned, ... |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000235/18381211/025/0001 |newspaper=Kentish Gazette |date=11 December 1838 |access-date=5 May 2014|url-access=subscription }}</ref>{{refn|According to Harold Gough, writing in 2001 or earlier, "on the entrance door [of the King Ethelbert Inn were] the words 'Hoy and Anchor Bar'".{{sfn|Gough|2014|p=186}} The sign for the Hoy and Anchor Inn was reported as hanging in the King Ethelbert Inn in 1871,<ref>{{cite news|last=Buckland|first=F.|date=20 May 1871 |title=Human thigh-bone cast up by the sea |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000338/18710520/027/0004 |newspaper=Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald |access-date=7 May 2014 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> and as being in the Herne Bay Club in 1911.{{sfn|Lewis|1911|p=62}} The proprietor of the King Ethelbert Inn in about 1870 was John Holman, who published a short guide to Reculver, in which the inn was commended for its "eggs and ham, and Margate ale", and was advertised as providing accommodation for tourists.{{sfn|Holman|1870|p=}} Letters addressed to a Mr Holman and a Mrs Holman in 1862 and 1869 respectively were found in the inn in 1999.{{sfn|Anon.|1999|pp=189–90}} A John Holman was a farmer at Reculver in 1877 and 1878.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Charge of stealing barley at Reculver |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000338/18780323/021/0003 |newspaper=Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald |date=23 March 1878 |access-date=13 May 2014 |url-access=subscription |via=[[British Newspaper Archive]]}}</ref> The existence of two other public houses at Reculver was reported at different times in the 19th century, namely the Cliff Cottage in 1869,<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Prosecution under the new Beerhouse Act |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000330/18690813/018/0004 |newspaper=Dover Express |date=13 August 1869 |access-date=6 May 2014 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> and the Pig and Whistle in 1883.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Reculver. Suicide of a youth |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000338/18830915/025/0004 |newspaper=Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald|date=15 September 1883 |access-date=7 May 2014 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>|group=Fn}} Further construction work is indicated by a stone over the doorway to the inn bearing a date of 1843,<ref name=Inn1843>{{cite web|url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE18651|title=Reculver Lane Herne {{nowrap begin}}Bay /{{nowrap end}} The King Ethelbert Public House|author=Exploring Kent's Past|publisher=Kent County Council|date=n.d.| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605154847/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE18651 | archive-date=5 June 2015 | url-status=live |access-date=5 June 2015}}</ref> and it was later extended into the form in which it stands today, "probably&nbsp;... in 1883".{{sfn|Gough|2014|p=190}}{{refn|A travel guide of 1865 described "the Ethelbert's Arms" as "a quaint little hostelry, where the visitor will meet with perhaps rude fare, but with certainly the most civil attention."{{sfn|Anon.|1865|p=100}} The King Ethelbert public house has protected status as a locally listed building.<ref name=Inn1843 />|group=Fn}}

Today the site of the church, including the upper part of the sea defences there, is managed by [[English Heritage]], and the village has all but disappeared.{{sfn|Hunt|2011|pp=23–4}}{{refn|Reculver is listed as a "possible [[deserted medieval village]]" (DMV) in the Kent Historic Environment Record.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6543|title=Possible Deserted Medieval Village at Reculver|author=Exploring Kent's Past|publisher=Kent County Council|date=n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605155123/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6543 | archive-date=5 June 2015 | url-status=live |access-date=5 June 2015}}</ref> The main sea defences around Reculver are maintained by the [[Environment Agency]].{{sfn|Hunt|2011|pp=23–4}}|group=Fn}} The present appearance of the cliff below the church, a grassy slope above a large stone apron, was the work of central government and was in place by April 1867.<ref>{{cite news|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Reculver Towers |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000235/18670430/033/0006 |newspaper=Kentish Gazette |date=30 April 1867 |access-date=6 May 2014|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In 2000 the surviving fragments of an early medieval cross that once stood inside the old church were used to design a Millennium Cross to commemorate two thousand years of Christianity. This stands at the entrance to the car park and was commissioned by [[City of Canterbury|Canterbury City Council]].{{sfn|Canterbury City Council|2008|p=5}}

===Bouncing bombs===
{{main|Bouncing bomb}}
[[File:Bouncing bomb training - IWM FLM 2343.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|left|alt=refer to caption|[[Barnes Wallis]] and others watching a [[Operation Chastise|Dambusters]] bouncing bomb prototype strike the shoreline at Reculver, 1943]]
During the [[World War II|Second World War]], the coastline east of the village was used to test prototypes of [[Barnes Wallis]]'s bouncing bomb.{{sfn|Flower|2002|p=21}} This area was chosen for its seclusion,{{sfn|Flower|2002|p=29}} while the clear landmark of the church towers and the ease of recovering prototypes from the shallow water were probably also factors.{{sfn|Anon.|1997|p=240}}{{refn|The shoreline at Reculver had been put to a similar use by the [[Royal Artillery]] in 1805.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=[[The Times]] |title=The ''Powerful'', and ''Intrepid'',&nbsp;... |date=12 August 1805 |df=dmy |page=2 |url=https://www.thetimes.com/tto/archive/article/1805-08-12/2/4.html#start%3D1785-01-01%26end%3D1809-12-31%26terms%3DReculver%26back%3D/tto/archive/find/Reculver/w:1785-01-01%7E1809-12-31/1%26prev%3D/tto/archive/frame/goto/Reculver/w:1785-01-01%7E1809-12-31/5%26next%3D/tto/archive/frame/goto/Reculver/w:1785-01-01%7E1809-12-31/7 |url-access=subscription |access-date=25 November 2016}}</ref>|group=Fn}} Different, [[wikt:inert|inert]] versions of the bomb were tested at Reculver, leading to the development of the operational version known as "[[Bouncing bomb#Upkeep|Upkeep]]".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thedambusters.org.uk/media.html|title=Video|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|publisher=The Dambusters (617 Squadron) | date=n.d.| at=Upkeep test drop 1 & Upkeep test drop 2 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041209055341/http://www.thedambusters.org.uk/media.html | archive-date=9 December 2004 | url-status=live |access-date=20 April 2014}}</ref> This bomb was used by the [[Royal Air Force|RAF]]'s [[No. 617 Squadron RAF|617 Squadron]] in [[Operation Chastise]], otherwise known as the Dambuster raids, in which dams in the [[Ruhr]] district of Germany were attacked on the night of 16–17&nbsp;May 1943 by formations of [[Avro Lancaster|Lancaster bombers]]. On 17&nbsp;May 2003 a Lancaster bomber overflew the Reculver testing site to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the exploit.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3036315.stm|title=Anniversary tribute to Dambusters|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> | work=BBC News Online|date=17 May 2003|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030622035135/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3036315.stm|archive-date=22 June 2003|url-status=live|access-date=20 April 2014}}</ref>

Two prototype bouncing bombs, about {{convert|6|ft|m|0}} long and {{convert|3|ft|m|0}} wide, lay in marshland behind the sea wall until about 1977, when they were removed by the [[British Army|Army]].{{sfn|Anon.|1997|p=240}} Other prototypes were recovered from the shoreline in 1997, one of which is in [[Herne Bay Museum and Gallery]], a little over {{convert|3|mi|km|0}} west of Reculver.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-tide-is-turned-for-dam-buster-bombs-raised-1255040.html |title=The tide is turned for Dam Buster bombs raised |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=The Independent |date=9 June 1997 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140408222725/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-tide-is-turned-for-dam-buster-bombs-raised-1255040.html |archive-date=8 April 2014 |url-status=live |access-date=19 May 2014 |postscript=; }} {{cite web|url=http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/main.cfm?objectid=2194 |title=Bouncing bomb back |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |publisher=Canterbury City Council Online |date=29 October 1999 |access-date=20 April 2014 |postscript=; |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130405072023/http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/main.cfm?objectid=2194 |archive-date=5 April 2013 }} {{harvnb|Anon.|1997|pp=239–40}}.</ref> Others are on display in [[Dover Castle]] and in the Spitfire & Hurricane Memorial Museum at the former [[RAF Manston]], on the Isle of Thanet.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/peoplesmuseum/week2_01.shtml |title=People's Museum – Week two gallery The Bouncing Bomb |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |magazine=BBC History |date=25 October 2006 |access-date=20 April 2014 |postscript=; |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101025154929/http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/peoplesmuseum/week2_01.shtml |archive-date=25 October 2010 }} {{cite web|url=http://www.spitfiremuseum.org.uk/spitfire/other.htm |title=The Dambusters Bouncing Bomb |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |publisher=RAF Manston Spitfire & Hurricane Memorial Museum |date=n.d. |access-date=20 April 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130812192310/http://www.spitfiremuseum.org.uk/spitfire/other.htm |archive-date=12 August 2013 }}</ref> Part of an inert Upkeep bomb, consisting mostly of a circular end with some of its filling still adhering, was uncovered during beach maintenance work undertaken at Reculver by the Environment Agency on 29&nbsp;March 2017.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/world-war-two-bouncing-bomb-discovered-beach-kent/ |title=Dambusters bouncing bomb discovered washed up on a beach in Kent |newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |date=31 March 2017 |access-date=3 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170703041745/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/world-war-two-bouncing-bomb-discovered-beach-kent/ |archive-date=3 July 2017 |url-status=live |df=dmy-all }}</ref>