Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:58:42.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combined Archaeological and Geotechnical Investigations of the Roman fort at Lympne, Kent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

J. N. Hutchinson ,
Cynthia Poole ,
N. Lambert  and
E. N. Bromhead
J. N. Hutchinson
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The present investigation was initiated as part of a programme of research into abandoned cliffs, focused particularly on their morphology, geomechanics and mode of development following the cessation of erosion at their foot. An excellent example of such a feature is provided by the cliffs backing the extensive littoral and alluvial accumulation of Romney Marsh in Kent (FIG 1.). At Lympne, the lower slopes of these are occupied by the remains of the Roman fort known as Stutfall Castle, which has been strongly disrupted by landslides. It was accordingly decided to concentrate the investigations in this general area, in the expectation that the archaeology of the fort would throw light on the later stages of landsliding and slope development. At the same time it was hoped that the geotechnical work would illuminate some of the long-standing archaeological problems of the site.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 16 , November 1985 , pp. 209 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © J. N. Hutchinson, Cynthia Poole, N. Lambert and E. N. Bromhead 1985. 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

1 Smith, C. Roach, The Antiquities of Richborough, Reculver and Lymne (London, 1850)Google Scholar; Report on excavations made on the Site of the Roman Castrum at Lymne, in Kent, in 1850, (London, 1852).Google Scholar

2 A brief note in The Athenaeum (22 Sept. 1894).Google Scholar

3 Cunliffe, B. W., ‘Excavations at the Roman Fort at Lympne, Kent 1976–78’ Britannia xi (1980), 227–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Smart, J. G. O., Bisson, G. and Worssam, B. C., ‘Geology of the country around Canterbury and Folkestone’ Mem. Geol. Survey of Great Britain. H.M.S.O. London (1966).Google Scholar

5 Hutchinson, J. N., ‘A survey of the coastal landslides of Kent EN Note 35/65 (1965), Building Research Station, Garston, Watford.Google Scholar

6 op. cit. (note 3).

7 Hutchinson, J. N., ‘The free degradation of London Clay cliffs,’ Proc. Geotechnical Conf. Oslo 1967 i (1967), 113–18.Google Scholar

8 idem; J. N. Hutchinson, ‘The response of London Clay cliffs to differing rates of toe erosion’ Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia viii (1973), 221–39.

9 Collinson, P., ‘An uncommon sinking of the ground in Kent’ Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. xxxv (1728), 551–2.Google Scholar

10 Elliott, J., ‘Notes on the original plan of the Castrum at Lymne, and on the past and present state of the Romney Marshes’ in C. Roach Smith, Report on Excavations made on the Site of the Roman Castrum at Lymne, in Kent, in 1850 (1852).Google Scholar

11 This is shown in the frontispiece of Roach Smith, op. cit. (note 1, 1852).Google Scholar

12 Vine, P. A. L., The Royal Military Canal (Newton Abbot, 1972).Google Scholar

13 Hutchinson, J. N. and Gostelow, T. P., ‘The development of an abandoned cliff in London Clay at Hadleigh, Essex’ Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 283 (1976), 557–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Cunliffe, B. W., pers. comm. (1984); op. cit. (note 3).Google Scholar

15 Skempton, A. W. and Weeks, A. G., ‘The Quaternary history of the Lower Greensand escarpment and Weald Clay vale near Sevenoaks, Kent’ Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 283 (1976), 493–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Hutchinson, J. N., ‘Field meeting on the coastal landslides of Kent’ Proc. Geol. Ass. lxxix (1968), 227–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 The plural is used here as a distinction is made between the north-west wall, between Bastions 4 and 5, and the north wall, between Bastions 5 and 6 (FIG. 4).

18 Blundell, D. J., Garside, A. W. and Wilton, T. J., ‘Geophysical surveys across the centre of the Roman fort at Watercrook, Kendal’ Prospezioni Archeologiche ix (1974), 35–45.Google Scholar

19 This consists of irregular lumps of stiff clay, or other hard material, in a matrix of softer clay.

20 op. cit. (note 3).

21 op. cit. (note 3).

22 op. cit. (note 1, 1852), pl. i, upper part.

23 op. cit. (note 3).

24 idem.

25 idem.

26 op. cit. (notes 1 and 3).

27 Cunliffe, B. W., Excavations at Portchester Castle. Vol. 1: Roman. (London, 1965), esp. 13–21.Google Scholar

28 B. W. Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 3); ‘The evolution of Romney Marsh: a preliminary statement’ in Archaeology and Coastal Change (Society of Antiquaries, London 1980), 37–53.

29 op. cit. (note 3).

30 op. cit. (note 1).

31 This estimate will be slightly high if the northern walls of the fort were in fact mansard-shaped in plan.

32 Smith, Roach, op. cit. (note 1, 1852), pl. ii.Google Scholar

33 Hutchinson, J. N., Prior, D. B. and Stephens, N., ‘Potentially dangerous surges in an Antrim mudslide’ Q. Jl Engrg Geol. vii (1974), 363–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 cf. note 31.

35 Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 3).

36 op. cit. (note 1, 1852).Google Scholar

37 ibid.

38 The north, rather than the south side.

39 Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 3).

40 On this basis, taking the average bastion diameter as 6 m, the total east-west width of the fort can be estimated as approximately . This agrees closely with Cunliffe’s estimate of about 200 m, op. cit. (note 3).

41 Leland, John, Itinerary in England and Wales in or about the Years 1535–1543 (2nd ed., Oxford, 1744).Google Scholar

42 Fussell, L., A journey round the coast of Kent (London, 1818)Google Scholar, appears to have been the first to ascribe the dislocation of the fort entirely to landslips, although Hasted, E., The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent (Canterbury, 1778–1799) had earlier mentioned these as a partial cause of the ruin.Google Scholar

43 Reported by Roach Smith (1852) op. cit. (note 1).

44 op. cit. (note 3).

45 idem.

46 Piles have been proven only beneath the northern walls. It is possible that they were omitted beneath the bastions and a thicker ragstone platform provided there instead (as at Bastion 3).

47 According to Vitruvius, II, ix and III, iv.

48 Tooley, M. J., Sea-Level Changes. North-West England during the Flandrian Stage (Oxford, 1978).Google Scholar

49 Jones, D. K. C., South-east and Southern England (The geomorphology of the British Isles) (London and New York, 1981).Google Scholar

50 op. cit. (note 42).