Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:05:50.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Survey of Tile from the Roman Bath House at Beauport Park, Battle, E. Sussex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Gerald Brodribb
Gerald Brodribb
Affiliation:
Stubbles, Ewhurst Green, nr Robertsbridge, E. Sussex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the reasons for the Roman invasion of Britain was the hope of exploiting the natural resources of the country. It was not long before there was considerable iron-working in the Weald, especially in the area round Battle, East Sussex. Iron slag is to be seen at several sites, but little excavation of these has taken place. The best evidence for iron-working comes from Beauport Park, where a vast slag heap was discovered in 1862: much of this was removed during the 1870s for road-making, and there was no excavation of the site until the writer began work in 1967, and after three years' search found a building that proved to be a bath-house (FIG. 1).

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 10 , November 1979 , pp. 139 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Gerald Brodribb 1979. 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 See forthcoming issue of Sussex Arch. Colls. 116 (1979), and also Brodribb, G., ‘Stamped Tiles of the Classis Britannica’, Sussex Arch. Colls. 107 (1969), 102–25Google Scholar.

2 Peacock, D. P. S., ‘Bricks and Tiles of the Classis Britannica: Petrology and Origin’, Britannia viii (1977), 240.Google Scholar

3 Terence, Phormio 186.

4 Grimes, W. F., Y Cymmrodor xli (1930), 135Google Scholar: ‘The width of the ridge-tile is the same throughout, and the section truly semicircular, while the imbrex increases in width from top to bottom, and is more triangular in section.’

5 Jenkins, F., Antiq. Journ. xxxvi (1956), 44.Google Scholar

6 The apex of the roof of the British School at Rome is thus tiled, as also are buildings attached to the Museo delle Terme Diocleziano.

7 S. E. Winbolt, Roman Folkestone (1925), 104.

8 Lugli, G., La technica edilizia romana i (1960), 550.Google Scholar

9 R. E. M. and T. V. Wheeler, Verulamium (1936), 141.

10 Cunliffe, B., Excavations at Fishbourne ii (1971), 43.Google Scholar

11 R. Goodburn, Chedworth (1972), 17.

12 Sutton, T., Sussex Arch. Colls. 90 (1952), 2.Google Scholar

13 Greene, H. J. M., Archaeological News Letter vi (1959), 252–4.Google Scholar

14 Hope, W. H. St. John, Archaeologia lx (1907), 442.Google Scholar

15 P. J. Woods, Kent Arch. Review, Aug. 1966, 20.

16 Pliny, , Epistles iii, 14: ‘fervens pavimentum’.Google Scholar

17 Brodribb, G., Britannia iv (1973), 333Google Scholar, and pl. XLI A.

18 J. Ward, Romano-British Buildings and Earthworks (1911), 263.

19 Note attached to tiles in small plunge bath, room 28.

20 Lowther, A. W. G., Arch. Journ. 102 (1945), 99Google Scholar and fig. 23 (2).

21 The same can be seen on a Roman steelyard in the museum at Naples.

22 Gallia 14 (1956), 81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar