Ceramic Building Materials from Alfoldean.

Monument Name: ALFOLDEAN Unique Identifier: 396849 NMR Number: TQ 13 SW 8 Grid Reference: TQ 1173 3305 SAM Number: WS222 Alfoldean is a large Romano-British mansio and staging-post complex within a rectangular enclosure (clearly visible as a crop-mark and as an earthwork), straddling Stane Street, a major artery from Noviomagus (Chichester) to Londinium (London), and associated strip-settlement, situated about 6km west of Horsham within the parish of Slinfold in West Sussex (centred on NGR 511730 133050), occupying two fields situated either side of the modern A29 directly south of, and neatly snuggled into a large meander of the River Arun. The surrounding land slopes down to the flood plain of the river from all directions, with the highest area of the site approximately 31 metres aOD, with underlying geology of alluvial silt overlying Arun 3rd and 4th gravel terraces, which in turn overlies clay and sandstone (BGS 1972). The mansio and enclosure is considered to be of national importance and has been designated a Scheduled Ancient Monument (S.A.M. WS222). In October 2005 an archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Channel 4s Time Team at the site to investigate the remains of the Romano-British mansio and staging post complex and the associated strip settlement. The evaluation comprised an extensive geophysical survey and six trenches. The Site had been investigated in the early part of the 20th century by Samuel Winbolt, who exposed parts of the mansio building. He did not recognize the site for what it was, and interpreted the site as a Roman marching camp. The geophysical survey successfully plotted the outline of the bank and ditch enclosure surrounding the mansio complex, some of the mansio walls, and elements of the strip settlement. Trenching augmented these results with more detail of some of the rooms within the mansio, their construction and later robbing, enabling the definition of this site as a classic courtyard mansio. A trench was also excavated across the bank and ditches of the enclosure on the southern side. The mansio and surrounding enclosure appear to have been constructed some time in the later 1st century AD. The focus of activity on the Site was from the later 1st century into the 3rd century AD, with sporadic later activity, broadly confirming the results of previous fieldwork on the Site. The end-date of the mansio complex, however, remains unclear. Post Roman agricultural practices were seen to have had a significant impact on the underlying archaeology with plough scars and land drains recorded in several of the excavated trenches. It may be seen therefore, that this site is a very sensitive ancient landscape, full of archaeology, and one that is gradually being destroyed by constant ploughing. It is

in great need of recording but at the same time must be treated with a great deal of respect. As a consequence, some thought was applied as how best to apply scientific study where the optimum amount of useful information may be gained, with minimal intrusion. Past fieldwalking normally concentrated on the pottery scatter over the site, and often, because of the vast quantities present, the CBM tended to be recorded but left behind. Could there be any scientific gain in revisiting the site and making a note of the nature, in particular the size, shape, fabric and age of this material, the bricks, tegulae, imbrices, and the flue tiles, paying particular attention to the patterns of combing and of roller stamping occurring on fragments of the latter which occur throughout the site, and what could such a study tell us with regard dating and provenance, and as a consequence, could such a study offer clues concerning possible organisation of building ceramic production and marketing in the late 1st and 2nd centuries? As a result of several visits to the site over a number of years, examining the reports of Samuel Winbolt, Mike Luke et al, and using for my points of reference the sterling work done by Broadribb, Lowther, Johnston & Williams, Black, and others I have been able to bring it all together and produce this paper. It is quite possible that much of the CBM at Alfoldean comes from several separate kiln sites, Ashtead Common; Wykehurst Farm, Cranleigh; Itchingfield; Doods Farm, Reigate; Dell Quay; and Wiston, and possibly one or two as yet unidentified sites in the Chichester/Arundel area. Before proceeding any further with this report, it would perhaps be useful to describe the different forms of CBM which are usually present on a site of Romano-British origin. Bricks. Bricks occur on Roman sites in various sizes, and often a particular size would be used for a particular function. Bessalis. A small square brick, used to create pilae (pillars or piers) to support the floor suspended above a hypocaust. The word, bes, means two-thirds of a unit and describes its size, the unit here being the Roman foot (pes) which measured 12 Roman inches (unciae), or 11.64 English inches. Two-thirds of a Roman foot came to eight inches. The average length and width of these bricks work out at 7.8 unciae which is the equivalent of 198 mm. (Broadribb, G. Roman Brick & Tile. 1987 Alan Sutton). At Itchingfield, one of the source tileries to Alfoldean (of which later), two examples of such brick/tiles, measuring 11 inches square, were recovered in pieces, one being 1 inch thick and the other 1-1 inches. No 8 inch pila brick/tiles were recognised. (Green, T.K., 1970, Roman Tileworks at Itchingfield. SAC 108. 23-38). Pedalis. Since the Roman pes is the basic unit for all sizes of brick and tile, it is not surprising that there would be a brick measuring exactly one square foot. A brick of this size was used as a capping or base brick for pilae consisting several of the smaller bessales. (Broadribb, G. ibid) Lydion. This brick is one of the commonest of those used by the Romans, and measures approx 44 cm x 29 cm x 14 cm. It was used for bonding or lacing courses found in the walls of large public buildings (Broadribb, G. ibid), and therefore its

presence at Alfoldean comes as no surprise, considering the primary building was a mansio. This brick predominates the assemblage throughout the site. According to Broadribb, the purpose of these courses were twofold: when the mason building the wall found that he had reached the limit for comfortable working, a course of brick was put on to provide a new level base. Then staging would be set up and the mason could proceed with his work The second function of the brick courses was to bind together the face and the core, especially when the cement was still soft. Even the thickest of walls had only thin outer skins of dressed masonry, the interior being filled in with loose small stone mixed with concrete. Tegula sesquipedalis. This brick had a measurement of 1 feet square (443 mm).and was a suitable medium to make a pavement on which to mount the pilae of the hypocaust. (Broadribb, G. ibid). They could also be used for flooring, although no evidence of this can be found at Alfoldean, the preferred method on this site being the use of chopped up tegulae (tesserae). Tegula bipedalis. This is the largest of all Roman bricks and measures 2 feet square (5914 mm), and is more versatile in its use than the sesquipedalis. One such use of this brick was to bridge gaps between the pilae of the hypocaust and thus form the basis of the suspensura or false floor. Another use may well be to sling these bricks on iron hooks just below the wooden joists which formed a vaulted roof in a bath-house. This would serve to protect the joists from being rotted by steam from the bath below. Further uses include that of bonding courses, and of the occasional introduction of a complete bipedalis into an arch made mostly of partial ones to bind the facing to the core. (Broadribb, G. ibid). [Flat Floor tiles etc. There is great variability in the thickness of such tiles and so it is dangerous to classify them just upon the thickness of perhaps small pieces. However, a fragment, 2 ins thick, of pale orange-brown ware, answering this description, which came from the remains of the bridge at Alfoldean, (Winbolt, S E., Remains of the Roman Bridge over the Arun, SAC 76, 185), now resides on display at Barbican House, Lewes. It measures about 2 across the outside edge which, allowing for the dishing of tile faces when drying, points to Itchingfield tilery being the likely place of origin.] Cuneatus.(Solid Voussoir). A tapered brick used for vaulting. Any wedge shaped brick made to help the formation of an arch (e.g. a keystone) is referred to by the French word as a voussoir. The Romans had no equivalent word, except for one, cuneus, meaning a wedge, used to refer to the relieving the weight of walling by use arches of voussoirs. There are two varieties, the solid ones, and those similar to ordinary box-flue, except for being open-sided and having a taper. Since there is no equivalent word in Latin, the term tubulus cuneatus has been adopted for the hollow ones (such as those found at Westhampnett). (Broadribb, G. ibid). Opus spicatum. There is evidence from Roman Britain of some 30 sites at which examples have been found. The individual pieces range from 155 mm long to only 70 mm long, and from being 90 mm wide to only 30 mm wide; in depth the range is from 60 mm to several examples only 20 mm deep. This wide range falls into two types, one having the shape of a playing card, and the other closely resembling a fish-finger. There appears to be no standard example of such bricks, but it is

possible to calculate an average size of 14.4 mm x 62.8 mm x 26.3 mm. (Broadribb, G. ibid). The standard form of laying these bricks in a herringbone pattern and Winbolt found such a floor at Wiggonholt. Such bricks also display a wide range of colour orange, red, pink, buff, yellow, mauve, blue and grey; possibly the intention being to make polychromatic arrangements of the bricks so that once laid, a stretch of such bricks would be pleasing to the eye. Tegula Mammata (Type A). This is a brick which carries on its surface deliberately made lumps of clay in various formations. Several names have been applied to these bricks by various archaeologists; for example, in his report on excavations at Alfoldean Bridge, Samuel Winbolt called them nipple tiles (Winbolt, 1922, p104). However, the classical name as applied by Vitruvius (VII, 4, 2) and Pliny (XXXV, 46, 159) is quite apt, as the word mammata, comes from the Latin mamma, a breast. This ceramic falls into two types, Type A, has round shallow mammae with an average base diameter of 44 mm and a depth of 17 mm, and may be described as a brick; and Type B, which can be better described as a tile (see under tiles). The purpose of the mammae in Type A, seem to be to assist in bonding when the brick was used in courses or for flooring. It would appear that such bricks were produced in all the standard sizes - bessalis, pedalis, lydion, sesquipedalis, and bipedalis. However, only those of the lydion have been found at Alfoldean, and occur in two distinct forms. Those with two mammae set diagonally at opposite corners of the brick, and those with four mammae, one set at each corner.

Tegula Mammata (Type A) from Alfoldean. (Image, courtesy Mike Luke)

Roofing Tiles. Tegula. The Latin word tegula meaning a small covering appears to have been first coined by Pliny (VII, 56, 195). Sizes vary, but on average, measure 550 mm x 380 mm, and weigh up to about 25 lbs (55 kg) each. Elsewhere they have been found much larger (e.g. some at Silchester, measuring 570 mm x 480 mm wide, being the largest yet found in Britain). These tiles are flanged at either side, many with cutouts at top and bottom to facilitate effective laying on the roof of a building. The average depth of the flange appears to be about 50 mm, being double the depth of the face of the tile (the cross-section of the unflanged part of the tile body), and represents about one-sixth of the Roman foot. It is rare to find flanges smaller, but some from Slonk Hill, have been found measuring as little as 18 mm. Tegulae do not generally exhibit uniformity in thickness, so I have taken my measurements from the central point of the lower edge. There are also variations in the thickness and the profiles of the flanges, but the greater majority are square-cut. Several examples of tegulae have a finger-made groove in the angle between the inside of the flange and the face of the tile, and I remain unsure as to whether this is a finishing wipe, made during the making of the flange, or whether it serves some deliberate purpose such as a rainwater guide. All tegulae found thus far have undecorated flanges, which is the norm for such ceramics. However, elsewhere, (e.g. Icklingham, Suffolk), such tiles have been known to bear wavy lines and heavily indented pie-crust adornments along the top edge of the flans.

An almost complete tegula (in possession of the author)

According to Broadribb, as well as roofing, tegulae can also be used for flooring, bonding courses, foundation courses for walls, capping for pilae. Hypocaust pilae, locker bases, steps, wall cavities, draining, base of hearths, capping for tops of walls, ovens, flue dampers, and in rare cases, tile tombs and cists. It is small wonder, therefore, that the fragmentary remains of this type of CBM abound the site at Alfoldean and make up probably the greatest part of the assemblage. No specimen was found which gave an accurate measurement of the length of tegulae assignable to the Itchingfield tilery. Mr Marley had one example, said to have come from Roman Gate, which was made and fired like typical Itchingfield ones, which was 17 ins long. Three pieces give 12 inches as a typical width, while the

thickness varied between and 1 inches. At best, the flanges were rectangular in section, but often the inside face was rounded off to give an S profile. In the bestmade tiles the height of the flange was 2 ins outside and the width 1 inch. Some variety exists in the formation of the cut-outs at the corners; on tiles with squaresectioned flanges the cut-outs were square to the sides and from 1 to 2 ins below the top edge; whereas a diagonal cut was usual on tiles with slacker sections to the flange. (Green, T.K., 1970, Roman Tileworks at Itchingfield. SAC 108. 23-38). At the bottom corners clay could be removed merely with one slanting and one vertical cut of the knife; or an additional slice could be taken from the outside of the flange. In one example, the flange was removed entirely for a distance of 1 ins giving what appeared to be a universal tile suitable for use in either direction. It certainly did not have the semi-circular script which indicate the bottom ends of tegulae but then only two in three did. Further research at Alfoldean must decide the point. (Green TK, ibid.)

Incomplete tegula from Alfoldean.(image,

courtesy Mike Luke)

Imbrex, or tegula imbricata. According to Broadribb, the idea of an imbrex came from the making of ridges of clay to be smeared over the gap between flat sections of roofing (tecta) (Vitruvius, II, 1, 3). In time, this developed into a curved tile, in appearance, not dissimilar to a half-section of drainpipe, gradually tapering from one end to the other. The average length of an imbrex is approx 398 mm. The average width at the wider end is 93 mm with the narrower end 20 mm less. The thickness averages 20 mm, with a range from 30 mm to 14 mm. I have observed a much lesser quantity of fragmentary imbrices in the assemblage than I have found of tegulae. If consideration is put towards the fact that, as stated above, not all tegulae present in the assemblage may necessarily have come

from a roof, and may have had other uses, then this paucity of imbrices is to be expected. Furthermore, the number of imbrices required, may have been determined by the amount of overlap provided. Again it is not possible to quote the original length of the Itchingfield products. Apertures at the wider end were typically 7 inch. Profiles were either semicircular or ogival(sic.). On tiles fired to a grey-brown colour, walls were about inches thick but nearer inch in those fired brick-red; both types being roughly equally common and apparently contemporary. (Green, T. K. ibid.). Ridge Tiles. Some way had to be provided to cover the gap where the tegulae met at the apex of the roof, and thus a ridge tile had to be provided. However, I have found no evidence of such a tile in the assemblage at Alfoldean, and can only surmise that the builders used ordinary imbrices either butted together or overlapping. This is not to say that such specialised tiles were not used at Alfoldean, as they have turned up on sites such as Littlecote, Alcester, Sparsholt, and Newport (I.O.W.), it is just that I have not yet found any evidence of them, nor had Samuel Winbolt or Michael Luke. Cavity Walling & Hypocaust Tiles.

Diagram of a typical hypocast heating system showing the various kinds of bricks in use. Tegula Mammata (Type B). These have conical mammae with a base diameter averaging 57 mm and a depth of 60 mm. They were used set vertically in a wall to create a cavity for insulation or to act as a flue. They were held in place by cramps or T-shaped nails and were found to allow a more easy flow of air than flanged tegulae. Tiles can measure 600 mm x 600 mm x 40 mm, but there appeared to be no standard, as some have been found elsewhere measuring 490 mm square x 25 mm thick, and each had 4 mammae 60 mm deep of a conical shape. (Broadribb, G. ibid).

Half Box tiles. These date back to before the end of the 1st century AD, and are used to provide a space similar to that provided by tegula mammata, so much so, in fact, that the latter name was interchangeable between both types of ceramic, and that there was no specific name given to this type of flanged spacing tile. Some were provided with a cut-away gap in the middle of the flange to facilitate lateral movement of air. It was not until the late 1960s that it became more logical to make a distinction between the two types, the breasted type Tegula mammata, and the flanged type, half-box, on the basis that the half-box is similar to a large box tile cut in half. The average length is 460 mm x 330 mm wide, with external depth of flange being 82 mm The cut-away section of the flange usually amounts to about half the whole length, but the shape and size of the cut-away area varies. Some of these halfbox tiles have large diamond-shaped scoring or combing on the reverse side, as an aid to keying of plaster, and therefore proof that these tiles were set vertically on walls. (Broadribb, G. ibid). Tubulus (box flue tiles) These are basically a square form of pipe which can be affixed to the wall to form a continuous battery. Their purpose was to more readily facilitate the transference of heat through the thin tile and plaster to the room, not only saving fuel, but also preventing condensation. They were used to replace the old dark and narrow bath-houses, allowing bathers to enjoy the luxury of large unglazed windows and sunshine. A continuous tabulatio of box-tiles provided walls that radiated widespread even heat like that of an electric blanket.

2nd century box flue-tiles, found in 1886 in the Doods Road area of Reigate. There is now evidence of Roman kilns making box tiles in this area. One kiln was excavated in 2004 and there is evidence for several others. The pattern on the front suggest they were made by a travelling master potter as this pattern is also recorded from box tiles made at tile kilns in Ashtead and Sussex. (Image & text courtesy of Brian Wood and Holmesdale Natural History Club Museum ) A dating of about the mid first century AD seems about right, as they are mentioned in the Epistles of Seneca, who died in 65 AD, as being newly invented. (Broadribb, G. ibid). Nothing has thus far been found in situ at Alfoldean, but at

Wiggonholt, there is a very rare example of a double-row of such tiles found in room V.

tubulus fragments are prolific throughout the site at Alfoldean.

Sizes of these tubulae vary, heights ranging from 470 mm (Angmering) down to 155mm (Highdown), and widths from 330 mm (Eastbourne) down to 130 mm (Hornby). Depths range from 280 mm (West Mersea) to 85 mm (Colchester). The Angmering versions, which are rare, had a spacer down the middle providing two partitions and were referred to as double-box tiles. Scoring, combing, or roller-made relief patterns were applied to the external faces of these tiles to facilitate a better grip for the subsequently applied wall-plaster. Scoring was simply applied by use of a sharp implement or knife, and usually took the form of a diamond or lattice pattern; Combing was applied with a comb made of wood, bone, or metal, the comb, having about seven teeth, leaving a combined track-width of approx 37 mm.; roller-made relief patterns were achieved by running a wooden roller, with the design cut into it, over the surface of the tile, before firing. The latter designs can vary in width from 52 mm to 570 mm, and the length of the pattern from between 122 mm to 232 mm.

Examples of Combed flue tile from Alfoldean.

All three types of patterning are to be found at Alfoldean, but firstly I want to discuss the combed tiles. Almost exclusively, these can be ascribed to the Itchingfield tilery (TQ 14152980) where the vast majority of tiles were of the 6 inch cube type tubulus without side aperture. Itchingfield also lies on both Stane Street and the river Arun, approximately 2.5 miles to the south, and according to T. K. Green, its tiles

were produced almost exclusively for Alfoldean. I am not entirely convinced of this as I believe its products were shipped throughout the Chichester-London area. The site consisted of a tile-makers workshop and internal drying area, which was built after tile making was begun in the 2nd century AD. There were many dumps of tile debris, and the site was excavated in 1964. (Green T K 1970. Roman Tileworks at Itchingfield, SAC 108. 23-38). Nearly all the finds consisted of fragments of baked tiles. There were several patterns for the keying grooves, of which the saltire was the most common, usually with supporting strokes down the sides. However, there were also fancy patterns either wild wigglings, or elaborate convolutions. The main point to be noticed is that only two keying combs were used throughout. Comb A had seven teeth but, because the centre one was split in the middle, it left eight grooves when used lightly. Comb B had four well-spaced teeth, each shaped like a screwdriver, and tiles where this comb is used are characterised by stabbings. The profiles of these combs are shown below. It is noticeable that the wilder squigglings were made with Comb A; The user of Comb B only made alternating straight and wavy bands, or carried the side band across the top of the saltire and down the other side (see tiles in centre top & bottom rows of photo below). Examples of comb A and B were always found in association and do not seem to have a chronological significance.

By means of these distinctive combs, (Left) Comb patterns on box flue-tiles; (right) Comb cross-sections (Images, courtesy T K Green 1970. Roman Tileworks at Itchingfield, Sussex Archaeological Collections 108 plates IVb & Fig 4 p34) It has been possible to prove that Alfoldean was the major destination of a lot of these tiles. There was also a single corner fragment of a thick, deep-red tile which had been scored with a pointed stick in a lattice pattern.

Example of Itchingfield combed tile found at Alfoldean (image, courtesy Mike Luke)

The range of roller-made design types are enormous and form a study in their own right, and many of the tile fragments are to be found in the two fields under study, (both tubulus and half-box tiles), and in local museum collections. They could be easily identified by comparison with A Corpus of Relief-Patterned Tiles in Roman Britain (JRPS Vol. 7, 1994) by I. Betts, E. W. Black, and J. Gower, through careful examination of the details and size of pattern. The greatest difficulty I found, however, lay in the fact that many tiles examined, for example, were covered in mortar or opus signinum, or that patterns were indistinct either due to weathering after manufacture, or wear to the mould/roller itself during its life at the manufactory. Furthermore, I did encounter a certain amount of difficulty identifying some pattern dies due to their marked similarity to others, and this problem was particularly exacerbated by the frequent occurrence of smaller fragments preventing me from deciding exactly from which die they emanated. The following Die patterns have been known to be present at Alfoldean: Dies 4, 5, 16?, 22, 23?, and 66., the descriptions of which, for convenience, I have lifted from the Corpus stated above. The die patterns had originally been organised through the excellent work of A W G Lowther, who published his findings in A Study of the Patterns on Roman Flue Tiles and their Distribution (Res. Papers Surrey Archaeological Society, 1. 1948) and other papers. Die 4. One single example is known, formerly in the possession of J Gower when examined by a member of the RPTRG in 1994, but now in the Horsham Museum. It is dated to the Hadrianic period due to similar examples being found in contexts at Ashtead Common (Black 1987, 114-15), Fishbourne (Cunliffe 1971a, 179), and Beddington Villa (Adkins & Adkins 1986, 77). Die 5. This is quite a common die on the site, and is apparently a recut of die 5a which has not as yet been found at Alfoldean. (This die was identified elsewhere by Lowther 1948a.11). Examples from Alfoldean found by fieldwork and excavation, have been identified by a member of RPTRG, and further examples have also been donated to Horsham Museum by J Gower. Several contexts elsewhere have dated this die to the Hadrianic period. For example, a context dating example from Ashtead Common has a Hadrianic terminus post quem (Black 1987, 113-5). Other examples from the Tower of London have a terminus post quem of c 190/225 AD (M Stone in Parnell 1983, 130; F. Cameron Ibid., 130-31)., and also examples from Beddington Villa where the earliest phase of the baths is provisionally dated c 180 AD(Adkins & Adkins 1986, 77). Although it has been assumed thus far that these tiles came from the Ashtead tilery, it must not be overlooked that another kiln site, 10 km to the south-east, at Doods Farm, Reigate, operating contemporaneously with that at Ashtead, also used Die 5 for the relief-patterning of box-flue tiles.

Fragment of Ashtead or Doods Farm relief patterned tile found at Alfoldean.

To remind the reader, Doods Farm, Reigate was the site of a Roman tilery which was of some importance and produced a full range of tiles, though apparently not as wide a range of products as produced at Ashtead. According to Masefield & Williams (Masefield, Robert, & Williams, David, A Roman Tilery at Doods Farm, Reigate, Surrey A.C. vol 90, 247-259, 2003) it exploited Gault Clay, on the southern edge of which the tilery lies. The tiles range in colour from blue to orange to red, which reflects the firing conditions. Some bricks show all three tones or variations of tone which probably reflects a staggered stacking in the kiln. Overfiring was a problem at this tilery, and fragments of what were probably box-flue tiles have been found fused face-to-face. A full range of Roman tile appears to be represented: a bipedalis fragment, used to cap under-floor pilae; several sizeable pedalis, for pilae or alternatively lydion wall brick fragments; and a single keyed voussoir tile fragment. In terms of roofing tile, many fragments of tegula and imbrex were found, and dozens of fragments of decorated box-flue tile, (with examples of both combing and relief patterning), the remainder being either side fragments or apparently undecorated; useful comparisons can be made with tiles in fabric 3050 from Billingsgate. Measurements of three flat tiles or brick with one side complete were 305mm, 295mm and 285mm, all roughly the length of a Roman foot (296mm), which was used as the measurement for the sides of a square pedalis and the short side of the rectangular lydion. The only complete length measured 270mm. The average flat tile thickness was 38mm, which compares favourably with the average of 36mm for lydion bricks from Billingsgate in the same fabric (Betts 1993), which may indicate the flat tiles are of the lydion type. The most complete tegula has an incomplete length of 420mm, which compares with a complete example from Billingsgate, also in fabric 3040, with a length of 446mm. The bipedalis fragment was extremely thick with a maximum measurement of 88mm; Broadribb (1987, 42) lists the thickest bipedalis (from Exeter) known to him as measuring 80mm. Examples of keyed box-flue fragments in fabric 3050 from the 1989 excavations at Doods Farm and examples from Billingsgate exclusively have five or six-toothed combing rather than relief-patterning. In both cases this is in the form of a simple crossing design. However, 16 relief-patterned tile fragments, using Die 5 (Betts et al 1997, 74), were found during the 2002 excavations, and two or three complete box-flue tiles with the Holmesdale Natural History Club as well as the

British Museum and Guildford Museum examples are relief-patterened with the same die. Other markings include three flat and two tegula fragments bearing single arc signature marks from the 1989 excavations, and two from the 2002 excavations. A tegula fragment found in 1886 and now held in the HNHC Museum also bears an arc as well as a dog-print. Samples of tile from the 1989 excavation together with two fragments of relief-patterned tile from the 2002 work were submitted to the Museum of London Archaeological Service. Inclusions identified with the unaided eye comprise sand and ironstone (from the adjacent Lower Greensand) as well as grog and some flint, and the fabric matched with a type found in London, ceramic fabric series, number 3050). Both contain the visible inclusions. The lesser inclusions identified with the aid of x10 magnification, comprise frequent quartz (>0.8mm). This can either be dark Rose quartz (>0.3mm) or clear and milky quartz of normal colour. The proportion of each seems to vary greatly between individual tiles. Silty streaks and bands in the clay matrix have been noted in a number of London tiles. Tiles of fabric 3050 are known from at least 40 sites in London, although the amount % on each site is usually small. Only on one site in London is there a large % of tile in this fabric and this is Billingsgate (BIL75/BBH87), where a large quantity of fabric 3050 was used in a bath house, probably constructed in the early 3rd century (Betts 1993). The dating from Billingsgate corresponds with that derived from St Albans House, Wood Street (ABS85) where tiles in fabric 3050 were found associated with pottery of late 2nd to early 3rd century date. The current state of research suggests a date range for this fabric from AD 140 to 230. There appears to be a major change in the source of Londons tile around the mid-late 2nd century (Betts & Foot 1994). There seems little doubt that the London tiles in fabric 3050 derived from the tilery at Doods Farm, Reigate. Beyond London, fabric 3050 has also been identified at the Deerton Street Villa in Kent, as well as in Canterbury. This suggests that we had here an industry of considerable size, and I can see little reason why it should not have reached Alfoldean. In the absence of water routes, road transport would have been the only viable means of carriage, The most likely route would have been out via the approximate route of the present A25 to join up with Stane Street at Dorking. Broadribb (1987) records around 45 Roman tile kiln sites in Britain, which is a surprisingly small number and many more must have existed considering the large amount of tile produced, given the economic importance of tile in the period. Although Doods Farm is about 20 miles distance from Alfoldean, in the absence of any specific understanding of the market activities of the time such as the competitive pricing of products, the reliability of supply, labour costs, social aspects and so forth, transportation costs should not be considered the only variable concerned. Kilns have been known to supply tile over long distances; Harrold in Bedfordshire, for example, which supplied London with shelly tiles from the late 3rd to mid-4th century is about 38km from its market (Brown 1994).

Examples of the Roller Stamp Dies found at Alfoldean.

Die 16. Lowther (1948a. 13) listed two specimens of die 16 from Alfoldean which he had tentatively identified from a photograph. Elsewhere he refers to these as die 15 (Lowther 1949, 96). The photograph in fact shows tiles from the Folkestone villa (Die 16A) However, the Lowther papers contain a rubbing of another specimen said to be from Alfoldean which does seem to be Die 16. The actual specimen is now

lost. If this die is proven to be present at Alfoldean, then it is quite early as proven contexts examples from Canterbury give it a date of about AD 90/120 and late 1/early 2 cent. (Frere & Stow 1983, 189), and another example from Chelmsford has a context dating of c 120/125-30 (Drury 1988, 84 Table 2). It is also interesting that the occurrence of Die 16 at Mansio sites in widely separated parts of the province (Wall, Staffs; Alfoldean, Sussex; Chelmsford, Essex; and Godmanchester, Hunts) and perhaps from other places where a mansio probably existed (Canterbury, Kent; Braughing, Herts; and St. Albans, Herts) and the context and circumstantial dating available for Die 16, have led to the suggestion that there was a co-ordinated programme of building at mansiones, and the identification of this with the governmental assumption of responsibility for mansiones early in the reign of Hadrian (Black 1985, 359-60). Die 22. A single specimen from Alfoldean was recorded by Broadribb in 1978, then being in the collection of A H Baldwin. It has now subsequently been lost. Context dating from a similar example from Angmering which was used in the original phase of the bath house has an early Flavian terminus post quem. The bath house was demolished in the mid 2nd cent. (Scott 1938, 12-13). Another example from Newhaven has a late Antonine terminus post quem (Bell 1976, 236). Circumstantial dating at Fishbourne the use of die 22 can be attributed to the refurbishment of the Period 1C baths when the Period 2 palace was constructed (Black 1985, 372-73). The excavator dated this c AD 75-80 (Cunliffe 1971a. 219) but an alternative dating within the period c AD 90-110 has been proposed (Black 1987, 84-6). Die 23. Information provided by G Broadribb via D E Johnson attributed one specimen of this die in the collection of A H Baldwin as having come from Alfoldean. Alas, this example has also now been lost. Context dating: An example of this die from Angmering was used in the original phase of the bath house which had an early Flavian terminus post quem. The bath house was demolished in the mid 2nd cent. (Scott 1938, 12-13). Circumstantial dating: At Lickfold, Wiggonholt, the second period of the baths is dated c AD 120-25 (Evans, K. J. 1974, 114-15; Winbolt and Goodchild 1937, 18-19). Note: - both Dies 22 and 23 occur on what Black (1985) describes as Fabric group 1 London-Sussex tile group, The Museum of London has examples of two fabrics as follows: Fabric 3054: Fairly sandy fabric, common quartz (0.2-1mm) with frequent iron-oxide (up to 1.5mm). Occasional cream silty bands. Many tiles characterised by red and cream grog inclusions ranging in size from 1-5mm. Normally light brown, orange or red. Fabric 3059: As 3054, but characterised by numerous voids left by the burning out of organic temper (up to 8 mm). From the same tile production site as tiles of Fabric 3054. A common source for these two fabrics is substantiated in London where die 23 occurs on tiles in both fabrics. The division into two fabric types is not, however, always clear cut. Occasionally there are tiles the fabric of which contains only small amounts of organic temper.

Thin section of dies 22 and 23 from Bullock Down and Arundel by Angela Hodgkinson revealed that the tiles in fabric 3059 can be placed into two groups. One group characterised by a significantly higher proportion of larger quartz grains, giving a sandier texture. As both fabrics were found to contain chaff temper, a likely explanation for the difference is that they represent variations in batches of clay used at the same tilery. In London and Winchester the vast majority of tiles known to be in fabric group 1 are either box-flue or voussoir tiles. It is possible that the tilery supplying tiles in this fabric specialised in the manufacture of these two types of tile. However, this can only be confirmed by the examination of the fabric of other tiles on many more sites with box-tiles and voussoirs in fabric 1. It is interesting to note that the distribution of these two fabrics are Greater London, Surrey, and Sussex and therefore have a clear regional distribution. There is a concentration of tiles occurring on villa sites situated in Sussex on the southern side of the South Downs. The origin of these tiles is unknown, although the distribution suggests production as a tilery in the Chichester-Arundel area. They occur on 22 sites in London and are certainly imports as they differ in fabric from the vast majority of tile used in Roman London, which originates predominantly from kilns situated to the north of the city (Betts 1987, 28) On no site in London do tiles of this fabric form more than 1% of the total Roman tile assemblage. Dare I hesitate to suggest the tilery at Itchingfield to be a contender? An example of tile from this site is on exhibition at Horsham Museum, and although fragmentary (c 230 x 130mm), is sufficient to identify it as die 22.

Part of a box flue-tile, made at Itchingfield.

Only a few tile sites have been found in Sussex, and the only other known contenders are either Dell Quay (SU 83210192) or Wiston (TQ1414). Dell Quay is a Romano British Tilery on the coastal plain, now partly destroyed by coastal erosion. Large quantities of Roman tiles were found here in the early and mid 1900s, and a kiln was located by Geophysics in 1986, when further tiles, together with burnt clay, were located in a surface collecting survey and trial excavation. (Rudling 1987, Investigation of a Roman Tilery at Dell Quay, SAC 125, 81-90). This site may have produced tiles for the nearby palace at Fishbourne and town of Noviomagus, but unlikely to have extended its trade straight up Stane Street to Alfoldean. The site produced 5 tile types flat tiles/bricks; tegulae; imbrices;

tubulae; and voussoirs. Only 19 pieces of box-flue tile exhibited decoration, and all of these were combed and not roller-stamped. The combing showed evidence of a comb with 6-7 teeth reaching to a depth in most cases of 2-3 mm. The decoration pattterns included diagonal combing, lines of combing meeting each other at various angles, and wavy combing. There were no examples of relief-patterned decoration (Rudling 1987, Sic.) The following fabrics were identified at Dell Quay: 1. A soft sandy orange to yellow fabric with small lumps and lighter streaks of clay and sparse inclusions of quartz. 2. A soft sandy, pinkish-red fabric with large pieces of flint and small, rounded grog inclusions (up to 10 mm. In diameter. 3. A soft/hard purplish-orange fabric with very small pieces of quartz and iron minerals. I can find no tiles at Alfoldean with fabric as described here. Consequently, we can rule this site out as the source. The alternative site lying on the Downs at Wiston is also a probability. Here a furnace, wall foundations and many tiles were discovered in 1848. (SAC 2, 1849, 313-5); The exact site is now lost, but it was reported to lie ...north-east of Chanctonbury Ring and north of the Steyning-Washington road. In January 1848 was found in a field a short distance north-east of the old Rectory house (now called The Falconers) a hypocaust of channelled type built entirely of Roman tiles, The four outside walls enclosing a rectangular area 12 ft.by 12 ft., were 2 ft thick, stokehole opening on the west side. Four walls 10 ins thick (the width of a tile) came out from the north wall with flue spaces between and similar ones opposite from the south side... (Winbolt 1935 VCH Vol 3, 67) so it remains to be seen what dies came from here, if indeed they were stamped and not merely combed. Die 66. A specimen of flue tile bearing this die has been identified as coming from Alfoldean. It is now in the Horsham Museum having originally been in the possession of J Gower. Unfortunately there is no useful context dating available for Die 66. Circumstantial dating may be assumed through an example from Beddington Villa (Beddington Sewage farm), Surrey where the earliest phase of the baths is provisionally dated c AD 180 (Adkins & Adkins 1986, 77). Furthermore, this die was identified in association with examples of dies 4 and 5 at Ashtead Common Villa, and with the same dies at Beddington. Part of the roller used to produce die 66 has been damaged during its lifetime. This has led to the loss of half of one of the vertical elements above the W chevron. Looking back at past reports, especially those of Samuel Winbolt, information is sketchy, which is quite understandable as little thought was applied to building materials in the 1930s, which were often cast onto the spoil heaps withoout as much as a second glance unless something of extreme noteworthyness met the directors eye. Winbolts First Report of 1922 excavations (SAC Vol 64, 1923, 81-104), just simply stated... Building Materials. Tesserae: ordinary 1 in. Red brick; in limestone with black polished surface. Flanged roof tiles, with flanges socketed (one 14 by 12 in., 1 in. Thick, and flange 1 ins; marked with the foot of a bird, another marked with a dogs foot). Rammed yellow clay, 4 ins.deep for flooring, with

red surface (? Red brick dust). Nipple bricks. Keyed wall-brick with pink mortar (3/4 in. Thick) adhering... Mike Luke in his report New Evidence for the origins, development and internal morphology of the Roman roadside settlement at Alfoldean (SAC 138, 75101), stated Owing to the large quantity of brick and tile visible within the roadside trench and during field artefact collection, only a sample was retained. Although the majority of the 210 fragments observed in the roadside trench were undiagnostic, their thickness and general appearance suggested that many were probably tegulae. During field artefact collection all flue and selected other tiles were kept (148 in total). Two fabric types were identified namely (a) uniformly oxidized fine sandtempered, and (b) coarse/vesicular oxidized sand-tempered with a blue-grey core. The predominant tile forms were tegulae, flue tile and imbrices. The presence of the ubiquitous animal prints was noted, including an imbrex marked by the paw prints of a dog. A number of the tegulae contained signatures, comprising simple fingerimpressed semi-circles at the tile edges. Flue tiles, identified by their keying patterns, were mainly located within the mansio complex. Patterns noted were achieved by roller-stamping (relief-patterned tiles) and combing, the latter being predominant. Combed surfaces occur in either a wavy or straight-line pattern. The use of four, seven and nine pronged combs is attested, giving combing widths of 26 mm, 38 mm and 33 mm respectively. Greens examination of flue tile recovered from Alfoldean (1970, 32), indicated that, based on the use of two distinctive combs (four- and seven-pronged), much of the material derived from Itchingfield. Interestingly, no nine-pronged tiles were recovered from Itchingfield or Wykehurst. A number of relief-patterned flue tiles were recovered during field artefact collection, all deriving from within the mansio complex. The recent corpus of reliefpatterned tiles (Betts et al. 1994) records the presence of stamped tiles using dies 4, 5 and 66 (W-chevron) among the material collected during field artefact collection. Other dies recorded from the site in this corpus include 22 and 23 (Diamond and Lattice), identified by Brodribb (1987) and possibly die 16 (Diamond and Lattice) identified by Lowther (1948). The latter also apparently identified dies 18 and 19, but this was a misidentification based on a photograph of tiles found in Winbolts excavations at Folkestone (Betts et al. 1994, 9091). Betts et al. (1994) have suggested provisional dates for the use of the dies. Those from Alfoldean range from the Flavian period (dies 22 & 23) to the mid- to late-2nd century (dies 4, 5, 16 & 66). It has been suggested (Black 1985, 35960) that the widespread occurrence of die 16 at mansio sites may indicate a co-ordinated programme of building, possibly linked to the governmental assumption of responsibility for mansiones. Three incomplete Type A tegulae mammatae (Brodribb 1987, 60) were recovered from ploughsoil within the mansio complex. At least one other fragment has been found at Alfoldean (Winbolt 1923, 104). Brodribb suggested their purpose was to assist bonding when used in walls or floors, although Cunliffe (1971, vol. 2, 43) proposed the idea that the bosses were added to act as spacers during firing. At

both Fishbourne (Cunliffe 1971, vol. 2, 43) and Gorhambury (Neal et al. 1990, 169) they appear to be a later 1st-century AD phenomenon. The percentage of tile occurring within each of the phases is fairly uniform following the establishment of the settlement in Phase 3. However, the distribution of tile within the roadside trench is concentrated inside and within 230 m south of the mansio complex Finally, it has to be said that any prospective researcher of this site would do well to heed the cautionary note given by T K Green It is perhaps worthwhile pointing out the sheer bulk of tile which may be recovered from a site. A complete tegula will weigh about 12 lbs dry and 14 lbs fresh from the ground; this means that the equivalent of eight tiles will weigh about one hundredweight. It is obligatory that all specimens saved should be washed but it will be found much easier if they can be left for 48 hours to dry out, for then the worst of the strongly adhering clay crumbles off. In cases where finds can be left to dry safely on site, well and good: but when the location of the site makes this impossible there may be some hundredweights of finds to be removed at the end of each site visit. Where metrical and statistical analysis is contemplated and samples need to reach perhaps 50 or more before much significance can be expected in differences between sample parameters given the high inherent variability of a handmade product like a tile then the logistics of handling ones finds need to be well thought out at the start. Richard Symonds. Horsham District Archaeology Group, 2012. Bibliography: Betts, I. 1986. Brick & Tile, in T. Dyson (ed) The Roman Quay at St Magnus House, London, London & Middx. Archaeol. Soc. Special paper 8, (1986) 246-52. Betts, I. 1994. A Newly identified Late Roman Tile Group from Southern Britain Britannia 25 (1994) 21-34. Betts, I.M., Black, E.W., and Gower, J.L. 1996. A Corpus of Relief-Patterned Tile in Britain. J.R.P.S. Vol 7, (1994) Black, E.W. 1985a Hypocaust Heating in Domestic Rooms. Oxford J. of Arch. Vol 4, I, (1985.) Black, E.W. 1985b. The Dating of Relief-patterned flue-tiles in Oxford J. Archaeol. Vol. 4, 3, (1985). 353-76. Black, E. 1996. Box Flue Tiles in Britannia: The Spread of Roman Bathing in the First and second Centuries. Journal, Royal Arch. Inst. 153, (1996) 60-78. Blasius, E. et al. 1983. Tile fragments as characteristic evidence for ancient Roman settlements: scientific investigations. Archaeometry Vol 25, Part 2, 1983. Broadribb, Gerald. 1987 Roman Brick and Tile. Gloucester, UK; Alan Sutton Publishing 1967.ISBN 0 86299 363 6

Broadribb, G. 1979. A Survey of Tile from the bath-house at Beauport Park, Battle, East Sussex, Britannia 10, 1979, 139-156. Evans, K.J., 1974. Excavatons on a Romano-British site, Wiggonholt, 1964. Sussex Archaeological Collections 112. (1974) 97-151. Foster, S. 1986. The tiles in D.R.Rudling The Excavation of a Roman Tilery on Great Cansiron Farm, Hartfield, East sussex, Britannia 17, (1986). 203-13. Goodchild, R.G. 1937. The Roman Brickworks at Wykehurst Farm, Surrey Archaeological Collections 45 (1937). 74-96 Green, T.K. 1970. Roman Tileworks at Itchingfield, Sussex Archaeological Collections 108 (1970) 23-38 Green, T.K. 1979. Techniques for Studying comb-signature distributions Bri. Archaeol. Rep 68 (1979), 364. Hanworth, R. 1968. The Roman Villa at Rapsley, Ewhurst, Surrey Archaeological Collections 65 (1968). 1-70 Hodder, I. 1974. The distribution of two types of Romano=British coarse pottery in the West Sussex region, Sussex Archaeological Collections 112 (1974).86-96 Johnstone, D.E.& Williams, D.F. 1979. Releif-patterned Tiles A Reappraisal. Brit. Archaeol. Rep. 68 (1979) Lowther, A.W.G. 1927. Excavations at Ashtead. Surrey Archaeological Collections 37 (1927) 144-163 Lowther, A.W.G. 1928. Excavations at Ashtead. Surrey Archaeological Collections 38 (1930) 1-17. Lowther, A.W.G. (1935) An Ashtead Flue-Tile found at Verulamium Surrey Archaeological Collections 43 (1935) 117-118. Lowther, A.W.G. 1948 A study of patterns on Roman flue-tiles and their distribution, Research Paper 1 of Surrey Archaeological Society, 1948. Lowther, A.W.G. 1976. Romano-British chimney pots and finials. (ed. F.H. Thomson), Antiq. J 56-1 (1976) 35-48. Luke, M. 1986. Alfoldean: A re-assessment of past archaeological activity and a report on recent activity. Unpublished dissertation, Dept. of Archaeol., University College, Cardiff (1986). Masefield, R., and Williams, D., 2003. A Roman tilery at Doods Farm, Reigate. Surrey Archaeological Collections 90, (2003) 247-259 McWhirr, A.D.1979. Editor Roman Bricks and Tile, Brit. Archaeol. Rep. 68 (1979)

McWhirr, A.D. 1979. Tile Kilns in Roman Britain. Brit. Archaeol. Rep. 68 (1979). McWhirr, A.D. & Viner, D. 1978. Production and distribution of Tiles in Roman Britain with particular reference to the Cirencester Region, Britannia 9 (1978). 359377. Rook, A.G. 1979. Tiled Roofs, Brit Archaeol. Rep. 68 (1979) Swan, V.G. 1984. The Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain H.M.S.O. London, 1984. Walthew, C. 1975. The Town House and the Villa House in Roman Britain. Britannia 6, 1975., 189-205. Ward, J. 1911.Romano-British Buildings & Earthworks. London, 1911. Wheeler, R.E.M. 1932. Notes on Building Construction in Roman Britain, J Roman Stud 22 (1932) Winbolt, S.E. 1923. Alfoldean Roman Station. First Report, 1922 Sussex Archaeological Collectons 64 (1923) 81-104 Winbolt, S.E. 1924. Alfoldean Roman Station. Second Report, 1923 Sussex Archaeological Collectons 65 (1924) 112-157.

Winbolt, S.E. 1935 Remains of the Roman Bridge over the Arun Sussex Archaeological Collections 76 (1935) 183-192 Winbolt, S.E. & Goodchild, R.G. 1937. A Roman Villa at Lickfold, Wggonholt Sussex Archaeological Collectons 78 (1937) 13-36 Winbolt, S.E. & Goodchild, R.G. 1940. A Roman Villa at Lickfold, Wggonholt Sussex Archaeological Collectons 81 (1940) 54-67 Wright, F.S. 1939. Report of bricks and tiles found at Highdown, Sussex Archaeological Collections 80 (1939) 78-79 Young, C. 1979. The Processing of Roman Tiles. Brit. Archaeol. Rep. 68 (1979)