{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029763830475574248, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01035263668715626, 'mean_word_length': 4.4628975265017665, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Romano-Celtic temple at Ratham Mill, Funtington, West Sussex

A Romano-Celtic temple at Ratham Mill, Funtington, West Sussex. Anthony King and Grahame Soffe write: The site of a Romano-Celtic temple has been known at Ratham Mill, c. 35 km west of Fishbourne palace, since the 1950s, when it was observed from the air as a cropmark. Air photographic evidence dating from 1963 has recently been supplied to the writers by J. R. Boyden, and since this forms the main record of the site, it has been used to provide an accurate plan for the first time, with the aid of computer-assisted plotting techniques (FIG. 8A). In addition to this evidence, a surface scatter of abraded tiles and pottery is spread up to c. 40 m from the temple, especially on the west side. The temple (SU 8090 0644) is located on a gentle slope just below the 50-ft contour close to a stream flowing south into Chichester Harbour near Bosham. It lies on the boundary between shallow brickearth soils and the underlying flinty head deposit. The main features of the building are three apparently concentric squares with sides of c. 155, 8-5 and 4 m respectively, although the cropmarks of the south sides of the two inner squares are indistinct due to an old field boundary crossing at this point and it is conceivable that these sides did not in fact exist. The squares stood within an area of lighter crop-growth which may indicate a gravel area or rubble spread. Although evidence from the cropmark itself is lacking, the entrance to the temple was probably on the east side, as was usual in such buildings. Some corroboration of this orientation is available from the siting, since the east side overlooks the stream. The existence of three squares presents an interesting problem of interpretation, for the two inner squares may represent the cella and ambulatory of a small shrine, surrounded by a temenos wall. On the other hand, the two outer squares could represent cella and ambulatory and the innermost square a foundation for a feature such as a plinth. An approach to resolving this dilemma is to compare the overall dimensions of these alternatives with other Romano-Celtic temples in Britain and on the Continent (FIG. 8C). If the temple is the smaller alternative, it would be the smallest in Roman Britain, but not, as the diagram shows (No. 1), the smallest known. The outermost square would form a very small temenos wall surrounding the temple, indeed the smallest so far recorded. Consequently, the larger alternative seems preferable, since it would fit comfortably within the size-range of other examples (No. 2). This interpretation leaves a difficulty to be cleared up, namely the function of the innermost square. It seems most likely to have been a plinth upon which the image of the deity or an altar was positioned, but its form, with four walls, is only found at one other site, Pommern building M. A solid block is usual elsewhere (e.g. Autun, Koblenz). An alternative interpretation is that the centre square is the surround of a well or pool (e.g. Hochscheid, Coventina's Well), but the