Editing Reculver (section)

===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 />