Poplin Marsh, Eastbourne Romano-British Ceramic Building Material (CBM) – Site Number 1992.1 (Unpublished)

CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL AND POTTERY REPORT ELFWICK FIELD SMALLHYTHE PLACE SMALLHYTHE ROAD TENTERDEN KENT TN30 7NG

National Grid Reference Centred on: TQ 8927 3001

Report by Kevin and Lynn Cornwell Joint Field Officers Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group

Registered Charity No. 294989

May 2020

1 Cover Photograph – A selection of Romano-British ceramic building material from Elfwick Field, Smallhythe Place, Smallhythe, Tenterden, Kent – photograph by Kevin Cornwell.

Introduction

Members of Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group conducted geophysical surveys at Smallhythe Place, Smallhythe Road, Tenterden, Kent between July 2019 – January 2020 (Cornwell & Cornwell 2020). During the field work artefacts were identified at two locations in Elfwick Field (site ‘A’ centred on NGR TQ 89274 30019 & site ‘B’ TQ 89250 29909). Nathalie Cohen, National Trust Archaeologist for London and the South East was alerted and the authors of this report were invited to comment on the archive.

The Romano-British Ceramic Building Material (CBM) has been compared with previous analyses undertaken by Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group on archives from Castle Croft, Ninfield (Cornwell et al Summer 2007), Kitchenham Farm, Ashburnham (Cornwell et al Winter 2007; Cornwell & Cornwell Summer 2008), Chitcombe Farm, Brede (report forthcoming), Eight Acre Field, Crockers, Northiam (report forthcoming), Fagg Farm, Udimore (Cornwell & Cornwell 2016), Poplin Marsh, Eastbourne (Cornwell 2016) and Old House Farm, Ringmer (Cornwell 2018).

The material has been divided into identifiable categories which include tegulae, imbrices, box-flue, flat tile/brick groups, here referred to as flat tiles. These have been sub-divided and the details commented on. A percentage of the material is abraded and cannot to be categorized as is common on many sites. At Dell Quay Romano-British tile kiln this accounted for over 70% by weight of the material recovered (Rudling 1987, 88), but at Hartfield tile kiln this was less than 5% (Rudling 1986, 208). The difference may be due to variations in land use such as cultivation. For Elfwick Field the uncategorized material has been recorded as ‘unclassified’ and accounts for 7.4% of the total weight. Any tally marks, cut-aways (for interlocking the tiles on a roof), foot prints or nail holes have been noted. The assemblage examined consisted of 54 fragments with a total weight of 6.467Kg.

The Romano-British building material recovered from Elfwick Field was found in two locations. Site ‘A’ was located to the east of the field and has been given the site code SME/A with Site ‘B’ (SME/B) in the gateway to the south abutting the lane running east to west. The material from both areas is well preserved with many clean breaks. Some has been manufactured from smooth clay, well fired to a hard-durable material, with other examples less well fired. Using comparison, Fabrics 1 & 2 have been manufactured using similar clays and Fabric 3 appears to originate from a different source.

Fabric 1 – Small iron stone inclusions under 5mm with creamy white inclusions with a soapy feel – similar fabric to examples found at Fagg Farm, Udimore (TQ 9062 2008) (Cornwell & Cornwell 2016).

Fabric 2 – Very well fired version of Fabric 1.

2 Fabric 3 – Dark salmon pink/grey sandwich effect with very small iron stone and white inclusions. Has a sandy feel.

It should be remembered that fabric should never be confused with colour (Brodribb 1987, 136) as variations in firing and the position of the tiles within the kiln can alter the final colour. Some of the material from Elfwick Field is darker than other examples and the assemblage has therefore been assessed using feel, clay type and composition of the fabric. This method has led the authors to the conclusion this assemblage comprises of three fabric types:

Tegulae (roof tiles)

Tegulae were made by pushing clay into wooden moulds. The sides and edges were trimmed using a knife or wire (Warry 2006, 7-36). Folds of clay are frequently seen in broken fragments of all tile types.

Warry (2006, 126) estimated that by weight there are on average 165 tegulae to one tonne with an individual tegulae weighing approximately 6kg. There are considerable variations in size and thickness which is also dependant upon the intended position of the tile on the roof. For Beauport Park the average tegulae size was 400 x 300mm (Warry 2006, 41), and at Hartfield 450 x 348mm (Rudling 1986, 207). With the material examined from Elfwick Field we can conclude that only the equivalent of half a complete tegulae has been recovered to date and this would cover a roof area of 0.04m2 (Warry 2006, 129).

From previously studied assemblages, the average thickness of the tegulae varies between 21 and 24mm, (Warry 2006, 53-54) with thickness decreasing over time (Warry 2006, 136). During the analysis of finds excavated at Hartfield, Rudling (1986, 205) concluded that only flat tiles with a thickness of less than 28mm could be fairly attributed as tegulae with those above this dimension being considered as ‘true’ flat tiles. Brodribb (1987, 13) states that it is rare to find a tegulae body thickness less than 20mm. 25 Tegula fragments total weight and percentage of the assemblage 3.051Kg/47.2%.

Upper and lower cut-aways act to interlock the tegulae into position when fixed on a roof, with the two top corners of the tegulae flange (upper cut-away) and the underside of the two lower corners (lower cut-away) being removed, probably with a knife while the tile clay is partially dry and prior to firing (Warry 2006, 33).

Warry (2006, 63) has been able to attribute four date ranges to the lower cut-aways and five different designs for the upper cut-aways, some with social implications, military or civilian (Warry 2006, 20-22) although these are not helpful for dating.

Two tegulae fragments in this assemblage have the remains of very badly damaged flanges (see Figure 1). Another has the partial remains of a nail hole (see Figure 2) used to secure the bottom row of tegulae to the timber frame of the structure (Warry 2006).

3 Imbrices

Imbrices are the long-concaved tiles that are mounted across the top of the flanges of the tegulae, bridging the gap to make the roof watertight. The average dimensions for imbrex are 380mm length and 160mm width (Warry 2006, 36), with an average thickness of 20mm but ranging between 14-30mm (Brodribb 1987, 26). 4 Imbrex fragments total weight and percentage of the assemblage is 468g/7.2%.

Box-flue The single example of Box-flue tile with knife cut marks (see Figure 3) was recovered from the eastern part of the field (SME/A). Traditionally box flue tiles would have formed part of a hypocaust system with the knife pattern/combing acting as a key when setting the tile into mortar. No mortar was present of this example.

Roller dies were in use during the 1st and 2nd centuries (Lowther 1948). No roller die decorated material was recovered during the 2019 field work on Elfwick Field.

Total weight of box flue/combed tile and percentage of the assemblage is 49g/0.8%.

Flat Tiles

On examination of the 8 flat tile fragments, 3 have evidence of a comb design which has been used to mark the material during the manufacturing process. This combing has been undertaken using a comb with teeth 13mm apart. Photographs can be seen at Figures 4 and 5. All the flat tiles have been catalogued as ‘flat’ due to their thickness (38mm or thicker) (Brodribb 1987). The combing is thought to be undertaken to act as a key for bonding using mortar. No mortar is present on any of these samples.

There is no full-length/width dimensions or structural features so the analysis is based solely on the material not considered to belong to any of the other categories.

Total weight of flat tiles and percentage of the assemblage is 2.421Kg/37.4%.

Romano-British unclassified ceramic building material

478g/7.4% of the assemblage by weight is much abraded and it is not possible to categorize for tile type.

Identifiable medieval and post medieval ceramic building material.

One piece of brick with a dark green glazed upper surface is made from a very sandy fabric containing small pieces of iron stone and fine white inclusions. The sample measured 70 x 69 x 26mm with a manufacturing edge length of 48mm still present weighing 167g. This sample has been dated from the late medieval to early post medieval period.

Two pieces of modern brick (total weight 163g) and four pieces of peg tile (total weight 76g) were also recovered.

Analysis of the Pottery

The pottery recovered are surface finds from the eastern side of the field in an area with mole activity (SME/A) and dates to two periods, the Romano-British period (1st- 4th C) and the post medieval period (post 1500AD). Table 2 summarises all the pottery recovered.

Miscellaneous Artefacts

These include a single piece of undated iron production waste (slag weighing 74g), furnace wall (burnt clay 61g) and an iron nail (11g).

Discussion

Gerald Brodribb’s pioneering work (1987) examining Romano-British brick and tile identified 30 different forms of building material and he projected how they were used in building construction as well as studying the tile stamps, tally-marks etc. He sourced study material from museums, archaeological sites as well as archaeological units. From this research we have size ranges for the commonly found tiles.

Peter Warry’s work (2006) has built on Brodribb’s but has concentrated on roof tiles, taking it to a higher level, studying material from over 100 sites and instigating date ranges from tile modifications.

Surrey Archaeological Society has a long-term specialist interest in box-flue tiles. These studies allow field archaeologists to analyse material from their sites, enabling projected ranges of building type and development.

The presence of tile types associated with a hypocaust system or bathhouse does not mean that these features were present on site as Brodribb (1987) notes that tiles and bricks were used for many different purposes and construction. It must also be remembered that buildings are altered, refined and repaired over time plus recycling of materials, all practices still in use today.

The Elfwick Field assemblage has been damaged by agricultural processes with a majority of the ceramic building material being redeposited in the gateway to the south of the field. Discussions with the tenant farmer and staff at Smallhythe Place has not clarified the origin of the material.

On the Morghew Park Estate 2.1km to the north-west-west of Elfwick Field, Smallhythe HAARG has identified a probable late Iron Age/Early Romano-British farmstead at TQ 8726 3070 (report forthcoming). The magnetometer survey confirmed the presence of numerous ditches around a settlement area measuring c. 140m N-S and c. 120m E-W.

19km to the east of Smallhythe on Marwood Farm, Falconhurst (TV 0780 3440) a small Roman-British villa was identified by Davies (2018) and this is situated at c.4m

5 OD. The material recovered from Elfwick Field in Smallhythe was found at approximately the same OD height on the same historical shoreline. Further research would be beneficial.

In December 2017 HAARG commenced fieldwork in Eight Acre Field, Crockers, Northiam (TQ 8262 2632). The site which is situated on the southern bank of the River Rother is 7.6km to the south west of Elfwick Field, Smallhythe. The site was brought to the authors of this report attention by the farmer who was ploughing up Romano-British ceramic building material (CBM). A program of field walking took place and over 2.5 tonnes of CBM was recovered including 161 partial stamped tiles of the Classis Britannica (CLBR). Other material included Roman glass, pottery, burnt clay and furnace lining. The subsequent magnetometer surveys confirmed the location of two large Romano-British tile kilns and a large ancillary building measuring approximately 38m x 6m with wings protruding 22m at each end (report forthcoming).

Previously identified Romano-British tile kilns in Kent have been found at Canterbury where two examples were located within 1km of the outer walls of the Roman town (Dvrovernvm Cantiacorvm), near Watling Street (TR 150588, SMR ref: TR 15 NE 35 and TR 143580 SMR ref: TR 15 NW 470). Another was identified at Funton Creek, Swale (TQ 880685, SMR ref: TQ 86 NE 35) with a further kiln at Eccles (TQ 717605, SMR ref: TQ 76 SW 36). These sites were reviewed in Cornwell & Cornwell Summer 2008 however since this report was published HAARG have identified a further four tile kilns at Castle Croft, Ninfield, East Sussex (TQ 681116) associated with the Classis Britannica evidenced by stamped tiles (report forthcoming).

Another site investigated by HAARG is Fagg Farm, Udimore, East Sussex at TQ 9062 2008 (Cornwell & Cornwell 2016). The site which lies 10km south-south-west of Elfwick Field, Smallhythe is situated on the River Tillingham. This small farmstead was identified by surface finds of Romano-British CBM and pottery. Analysis of the CBM highlighted that the majority is similar to the Elfwick Field, Smallhythe Fabric 1 & 2. This raises the question of where is it been manufactured?

References:

Brodribb, G. 1987. Roman Brick and Tile; Alan Sutton, Gloucester. Cornwell, K., L. Cornwell & D. Padgham. Summer 2007. Castle Croft, Ninfield; In Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group Journal, New Series No. 23, 4-9. Cornwell, K., L. Cornwell & D. Padgham. Winter 2007. A Roman site on Kitchenham Farm, Ashburnham – first interim report; In Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group Journal, New Series No. 24, 1-15. Cornwell, K & L. Cornwell. Summer 2008. Roman Site on Kitchenham Farm, Ashburnham (TQ 677125) – Second Interim Report – Ceramic Building Material; In Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group Journal, New Series No. 25, 1-10. Cornwell, L. & K. Cornwell. 2014. Where has all the Roman ceramic building material gone?; In Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group Journal, New Series No. 34, 19-22. Cornwell, K. & L. Cornwell. 2016. Fagg Farm, Udimore, East Sussex NGR TQ 9062 2008: Fieldwalking, geophysical survey and excavation; In Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group Journal, New Series No. 36, 1-10.

6 Cornwell, K. 2016. Poplin Marsh, Eastbourne Romano-British Ceramic Building Material (CBM) – Site Number 1992.1 (unpublished). Cornwell, K. 2018. Old House Farm, Moor Lane, Ringmer, Lewes BN8 5UR Romano-British Ceramic Building Material (CBM). Site Number OHR17 (unpublished). Cornwell, K. & L. Cornwell. 2020. Resistivity and Magnetometer surveys of Smallhythe Place Gardens, Elfwick Field and Forstal Field, Smallhythe Road, Smallhythe, Tenterden, Kent TN30 7NG. (unpublished). Davies, M. 2018. A Roman villa at Marwood Farm, Falconhurst, Aldington. In Archaeologia Cantiana 139, 269-279. Lowther, A.W.G. 1948. A Study of the Patterns of Box Flue Tiles and Their Distribution, Surrey Archaeological Society, Guildford. Rudling, D. 1986. The Excavation of a Roman Tilery on Great Cansiron Farm, Hartfield, East Sussex; In Britannia 17, 191-230. Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, London. Rudling, D. 1987. The investigation of a Roman Tilery at Dell Quay, West Sussex; Sussex Archaeological Collections No. 125, 81-90. Warry, P. 2006. Tegulae: manufacture, typology and use in Roman Britain, BAR British Series 417, Archaeopress: Oxford.

Acknowledgements

Nathalie Cohen, National Trust Archaeologist for London and the South East. Susannah Mayor, National Trust Senior House Steward, Smallhythe Place. Richard Axe, Roy Dunball, Martyn Ellis and Bob Washington HAARG members who assisted in the field. Alan Charman, HAARG member for the photographs.

Report Distribution

Nathalie Cohen, National Trust Archaeologist for London and the South East. Susannah Mayor, Senior House Steward, Smallhythe Place. Kent HER. HAARG Archive.

Context Fabric Tegulae Imbrice Box-Flue Flat Unclassified Total Percentage of Assemblage by Weight SME/A 1 49 (1) 49 (1) 0.8% 2 3 SME/B 1 2,181 (19) 468 (4) 797 (4) 213 (11) 3,659 (38) 56.6% 2 791 (5) 1,624 (6) 246 (2) 2,661 (13) 41.1% 3 79 (1) 19 (1) 98 (2) 1.5% Total 3,051 (25) 468 (4) 49 (1) 2,421 (10) 478 (14) 6,467 (54) Average 122.0g 117.0g 49.0g 242.1g 34.1g 119.6g Weight by Type Percentage 47.2% 7.2% 0.8% 37.4% 7.4% of Assemblage by Weight

Table 1 - Analysis of Romano-British ceramic building material fragments from Elfwick Field, Smallhythe, Kent by weight and quantity [weight in grammes (no. of tile fragments)]

Description Date Rim Body Base Total East Sussex ware 1-4th C 32(3) 32(3) Golden 16th C 2(1) 2(1) brown/green glassed fine ware Unglassed wheel 17-19th C 10(1) 11(1) 21(2) turned well fired Sussex ware 18-19th C 2(1) 2(1) Unglassed wheel 18-20th C 11(2) 11(2) turned well fired Wheel turned Late 18th – 6(1) 6(1) with pale brown mid 19th C slip on inside Salt glazed ware 19-20th C 13(1) 13(1) 10(1) 66(9) 11(1) 87(11)

Table 2 - Analysis of pottery fragments Elfwick Field, Smallhythe, Kent by weight and quantity [weight in grammes (no. of tile fragments)]

Figure 1 - Tegulae with broken flange from Elfwick Field, Smallhythe, Kent (site code SME/B). Made of Fabric 1 and cataloged as T1.

Figure 2 - Tegulae from Elfwick Field, Smallhythe, Kent (site code SME/B) with remains of a square nail hole. Made of Fabric 1 and cataloged as T2.

Figure 3 - Box flue tile fragment from Elfwick Field, Smallhythe, Kent (site code SME/A) with straight knife insurances crossing each other prior to firing. Made of Fabric 1 and cataloged as BF1.

Figure 4 - Classed as a flat tile due to its thinkness this fragment from Elfwick Field, Smallhythe, Kent (site code SME/B) has straight combing lines crossing each other prior to firing. Made of Fabric 1 and cataloged as F1.

Figure 5 - Classed as a flat tile due to its thinkness this fragment from Elfwick Field, Smallhythe, Kent (site code) SME/B has straight combing lines crossing each other prior to firing. Made of Fabric 1 and cataloged as F3.