7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

1/43

Site Code. OAKLANDS13

Site

identification

and address

Sedlescombe to Beauport Park

County, district

and / or

borough

East Sussex

O.S. grid ref. TQ785176 to TQ787153

Geology. Many

Project number. SNUFFLER1304

Fieldwork type. Geophysics

Site type.Date of

fieldwork.2012-2013

Sponsor/client. IHRG

Project

manager.Robin Hodgkinson

Project

supervisor.Period

summaryRoman

Project

summary.

(100 word max)

Geophysics on the site of the industrial scale Roman iron working siteat Oaklands Park, Sedlescombe and the Roman road leading southto Beauport Park.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

2/43

Geophysics at Oaklands Park & the Roman Road Southby David Staveley

Contents

I. Project BackgroundIntroductionAcknowledgementsArchaeological Background of the Iron WorkingsArchaeological Background of the Roman RoadGeological and Topographical BackgroundGeophysics Methodology

II. Surveying at Oaklands ParkSurvey AreaPositioning

Area A Magnetometry ResultsArea A Magnetometry Results at +/- 60nTArea B Magnetometry ResultsArea C Magnetometry ResultsArea D Magnetometry ResultsMagnetometry InterpretationEarth Resistance ResultsEarth Resistance InterpretationGPR A at 10nsGPR A at 13nsGPR B at 10ns

GPR B at 13nsGPR InterpretationMetal Detector Finds

III. The Surrounding Landscape

IV. The Search for the Road to Beauport ParkIntroductionGerald BrodribbRoad Course NotesLuff's Farm

Luff's Farm 2Battle Barn FarmNorton's FarmAldershaw FarmDiscussionThe Route To Westfield

V. Discussion

VI. References

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

3/43

I. Project Background

Introduction

This project is part of a larger project, looking at the Roman road network in Sussex and

the major settlements along the way. Ivan Margary's Rochester to Hastings Roman roadpasses through Oaklands Park, though the southern part of this road remains relativelyunexamined compared to other parts of the road system. In particular, the road leadingsouth-east to Westfield from Oaklands Park was in some doubt. This project looks at boththe road network in the area and the major iron-working site at Oaklands Park itself.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank landowners at Pestalozzi Childrens Village, Luff's Farm,Battle Barn Farm, Norton's Farm and Aldershaw for allowing work on their land. The authorwould also like to thank Robin Hodgkinson of IHRG for organising everything, Trish

McLaughlin for her research in Battle Museum and all the people who helped with thegeophysics surveys.

Archaeological Background of the Iron Workings

Relatively little is known of the iron-working site at Oaklands Park. It is noted as being oneof the three great industrial scale sites in Sussex, based on estimated slag volume(Hodgkinson 2008 p.31). The other two being Footlands, at the northern end ofSedlescombe and Beauport Park to the south. The latter has been heavily excavated andthe presence of CL:BR stamped tiles there tells us that the site was run by the ClassisBritannica, or British Fleet. Unlike a modern navy, the fleet was involved in logistics and

exploitation of resources, such as at industrial scale iron-working sites in the Weald, atsites like Beauport Park and Bardown.

The iron workings were first mentioned by Lower (1849 p.174) where he describes Romancoins recovered from a slag heap, but the real understanding of the importance of the sitecame with the description (Straker 1931 p.329) of a 30 foot high pile of iron slag beingremoved for road making in the mid 19 th century. As well as Roman pottery and coins ofHadrian, he also records brick and tile, which suggests buildings on the site. Enigmatically,Cleere and Crossley (1985 p.305) mention a slag-metalled track under the Pestalozzibuildings at the unhelpfully vague location of TQ788173.

Archaeological Background of the Roman Road

The site is adjacent to a Roman road that runs from Durobrivae (Rochester) in the north,down to this area of the Weald (Margary 1965 p.208-228). Unlike most other Roman roadsin Sussex, it is constructed of iron slag rather than flint, with a course that is more windythan normal for a Roman road, and an apparent lack of side ditches. It seems to be moreof a track than a road, and the southern part at least may have been constructed by theClassis Britannica, who seem to have controlled a large iron-working estate separate fromany tribal areas in Britannia (Cleere & Crossley 1985 p.67).

The road passes through a Classis Britannica iron working site at Little Farningham nearCranbrook, Kent, followed by a Classis Britannica port at Bodiam, where the road crossesthe river Rother (Lemon & Hill 1966 p.88). Though Margary then has the road passing tothe east of one of the big three iron-working sites at Footlands, near Sedlescombe, roads

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

4/43

have since been found leading into the site from the north-east and out of the site to thesouth-east (Lemon 1950-51). Though these were interpreted as side roads to the mainroad at the time, there is actually no evidence for Margary's road section passingFootlands. In addition to this, the 'side road' leading south-east from Footlands is on thesame alignment as Margary's 'main road' through Sedlescombe, further suggesting thatthe two are the same. For the moment, we must assume these side roads are actually the

main road. The road exiting south-east from Footlands continues straight through on thecourse of Sedlescombe high street, crossing the river Brede at the point of the current rivercrossing. This is of course adjacent to the second of the big three sites at Oaklands Park,next to Pestalozzi. Margary, lacking further evidence for the course of the road, then has itclimbing Chapel Hill and turning sharply east and following Cottage Lane down towardsWestfield.

The road system in the area seems to be more about connecting existing sites rather thangoing from A to B. This is suggested by the very winding nature of the roads, and the factthat the sites so linked would have needed to have been in operation to produce thematerial with which the roads were made. For this reason, Margary's road east to

Westfield was called into question, as it would have made much more sense to continuesouth to Beauport Park, another Classis site. This is one of the things that we intended tolook for. Margary himself considered a road running south, but dismissed it for the lack ofan ancient road still in use, noting correctly that Paygate Road is modern (Margery 1965p.228).

Geological and Topographical Background

The site of Oaklands Park ironworks sits on the southern edge of the River Brede, with theground rising steeply to the south, onto the western end of an east-west ridge beforedropping down again into a further valley containing a stream that feeds into the Brede.Climbing the hill from the Alluvium in the Brede flood plain, the geology goes through ClayHead, Ashdown Sands and finally Wadhurst Clay on the summit. Heading south toBeauport Park, the majority of the geology is Ashdown Sands and Mudstone. The waterlevels in the floodplain would have been higher during the 'Roman Warm'.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

5/43

Digital Elevation Map

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

6/43

Geology MapGeophysics Methodology

Grids were set out using a total station and recorded using an arbitrary grid, which can bere-established using resection points. Positioning information is displayed in a table foreach survey, with the points referenced shown on the interpretation images.

The geophysics surveys were undertaken using three instruments.

Most of the survey work was magnetometry, using a Bartington GRAD601-2 fluxgategradiometer, in 40 metre grids, walking along lines spaced 1 metre apart and recording 4readings per metre. The data was processed using Snuffler geophysics software. Unlessotherwise specified, destripe and interpolation filters applied.

The resistivity survey was carried out using a TR Systems resistivity meter, using 20 metregrids. Despike, edge matching and interpolation filters were applied.

The GPR data was collected using an UTSI Groundvue 3A GPR in 40x40m grids with linesspaced 50cm apart. The data was processed in ReflexW using dynamic correction,background removal, gain and bad pass filters.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

7/43

II. Surveying at Oaklands Park

Survey Area

The main iron-workings at Oaklands Park are at the edge of the floodplain of the river

Brede at TQ785176. The area was scanned with the magnetometer to find the extent ofthe archaeology before the full survey commenced. The tree line at the north end of thefield marks a sharp drop into the floodplain, just before the road into Pestalozzi, which ison the floodplain itself. Geophysics was undertaken in four survey areas.

The majority of the geophysics was done using magnetometry. These grids are shownusing black dotted lines and black positioning marks, referenced in the positioning tablebelow. Similarly, the earth resistance survey area is shown in blue and the groundpenetrating radar survey area is shown in green. Core samples were taken at two pointsnear Area D and are shown in red.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

8/43

Positioning

Position North East Description

Area A

RS1 551.37 379.15 C of SE face of NE gatepost of gate NW corner of field

RS2 610.89 649.97 C of south face of E gatepost of gate N centre of field

G1 540 500

G2 540 620

G9 540 520

G10 540 580

G11 600 556

G12 600 596

G13 540 530

G14 540 570

Areas B & C

TS3 501.49 440.51 N face of E gatepost of gate SW corner of field

TS4 552.88 465.52 S face of W gatepost of gate NW corner of field

G3 500 460

G4 500 500

G5 500 515G6 500 583

Area D

TS5 481.58 455.84 E side of W gatepost at entrance to field

TS6 597.92 529.23 W side of yellow topped S post of gate NE corner of field

G7 527.90 497.15

G8 536.02 536.44

B1 483.47 509.51

B2 502.01 539.00

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

9/43

Area A Magnetometry Results

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

10/43

Area A Magnetometry Results at +/- 60nT

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

11/43

Area B Magnetometry Results

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

12/43

Area C Magnetometry Results

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

13/43

Area D Magnetometry Results

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

14/43

Magnetometry Interpretation

Modern features are shown in red. Geology is shown in purple. Probable archaeology isshown in green, positive features only, with the strongest features shown as bright green.Possible archaeology is shown in light blue and water in dark blue. Labelled features are

discussed further below.

Feature A. This amorphous feature is quite substantial, and quite far away from any otherarchaeology. On the ground, it is associated with a platform on the hillside and is mostlikely a geological boundary. The geological map shows that the boundary between thelower Ashdown Sands and the higher Wadhurst Clay is 50 to the south, but that boundaryremains a possible candidate.

Feature B. This feature seems to be composed of a line of metal dipoles rather than beinga cut. It may well be modern, but it's form suggests it is more than just random metal junk.

Feature C. The paleochannel at the base of the valley that dominates the field can beclearly seen heading towards the existing stream in the north-east corner of the field. Thechannel may have been filled in to an extent in modern times.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

15/43

Feature D. This feature is a large dipole which likely represents a single metal object ofsubstantial size. It may be a large metal plate, used for crossing the stream, now buriedwith the filling in of the paleochannel. Such a plate has been seen at one point near thenorth-east entrance to the field. A smaller feature, not clearly metallic in nature, lies just tothe north-west, but the relationship between the two is unclear.

Feature E. The set of features marked as E may be old field of an unknown dateboundaries that post-date the Roman period. The north-south linear feature in the middleof the field seems to cut through the Roman trackway heading south-east out of the mainsettlement, with an east-west trackway running perpendicular to this. The track-like featureat the north-east entrance to the field is on the same alignment, stopping at a boundaryfeature that is weak, but seems strongest as it crosses the paleochannel. The relationshipis not entirely clear however, and some features may be Roman.

Feature F. There are a number of track like features at the western end of the survey area.The northern tracks seem associated with the main settlement to the north-east. A smallsection of track to the south seems to be truncated by feature G. The largest, running

roughly north-south at the western edge of the survey is more substantial, with asuggestion of slag metalling at the northern end. It curves, seemingly heading to the rivercrossing at the northern end and back towards Margary's course for the road at the south.It may be an alternative route for climbing the hill, or even the main one.

Feature G. It is known that at some point, a large amount of hillside was removed with adigger in order to fill in another feature in the field, in order to make the field flatter. It is notknown for definite where the earth was moved from or to, but guesses can be made. Thearea marked in yellow at G is a candidate for where the earth came from. Barring a fewmetal dipoles, the area is less noisy, with several ditch and track features seeming to endas the clean area begins. The earth may have been used to fill in the valley at Feature C.Archaeological features may have been lost in the process.

Feature H. This area is one of the most important within the main settlement. It isencompassed by an enclosure abutting a track to the north. The enclosure is roughly 30mnorth to south and 55m east to west at its widest point. The main iron workings respect thisenclosure, huddling around the edges on the western and northern sides. Nevertheless,there are features within the enclosure. To the western side is a mass of features that don'tappear to be direct iron-working. To the east is a clear rectangular feature. Both of theseare discussed further in the radar results.

Feature I. In the far north-west of the field, the main track into the settlement can be seen.It seems to consist of a pair of linear features, but it is not clear if these are ditches or theedges of a slag metalled camber that has seen the top ploughed away. The feature gets abit lost amongst the strong responses from the iron-workings, but it is reasonable toassume that it passes just to the north of feature J. After that, it seems to head towards theflood plain, with trackway L a separate feature.

Feature J. Some of the strongest readings are in this area in the middle of the settlement.Seemingly arranged against a linear feature to the north, possibly track I. This may beeither direct iron-workings, or a particularly dense area of slag waste.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

16/43

Feature K. This large area of high magnetic readings is presumed to be the main slagbank. Straker (1931 p.329) records that the slag bank was 30 feet high, but the size of thesettlement and the lack of space for it makes this estimate either an exaggeration or amisunderstanding. One possible explanation is that the slag was poured over the edge ofthe natural bank surrounding a flood plain, which would instantly have created a 15 footslag bank with little effort, but only on one side.

Feature L. This track seems to start around the iron workings at J before heading south-east towards the bottom of the river valley where it disappears. It's course is made lessclear by the modern metal pipe crossing the field, and one of the ditches that make upfeature F. The area of the stream bed (C) it is heading to is not as defined as in otherareas, so there may have been a crossing of some sort. Past that, it heads towards thegap in feature B, but is otherwise undefined. This track may head to the ore pits at the topof the ridge.

Feature M. A second enclosure within the settlement is somewhat larger than the first atH. Towards the west, this enclosure seems to keep out the densest readings for the iron-

workings, in the same manner as at H. The south-west and south-east edges seem to becomposed of a double linear feature, which tapers out at the eastern end. The archaeologywithin this enclosure is discussed further in the radar section of this report.

Feature N. This area was surveyed in advance of construction of the extension to the carpark in survey area D. Only alluvial and modern metal features are visible. Twogeoarchaeological bores were taken at points marked B1 and B2 on the survey area plan.B1 showed deep alluvial layers down to 1.8m and topped by a peat layer whereas B2showed solid geology that suggested that this area had been artificially flattened to thelevel of the surrounding floodplain. No archaeology was visible after the soil had beenstripped for construction.

Feature O. Immediately adjacent to the stream between survey areas B & C can be seena number of strong features. Those to the west are the strongest and their strength makesthe possibility that they represent gleying unlikely. If not archaeology, the linear to the eastmay be an old metal fence. A possible thin track feature heads through the tree in themiddle of survey area C towards the main settlement.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

17/43

Earth Resistance Results

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

18/43

Earth Resistance Interpretation

Magnetometry features are shown as green shading. High resistance features are shownas light blue shading. Low resistance features are shown as dark blue shading.

The resistance plot did not correspond well with the magnetometry and is most likely dueto local changes in the ground water rather than any indication of archaeology. The lowresistance area may have a slight link link to the enclosure, broadly defining the areaoutside it, but this is tenuous. The high resistance areas are most associated with the iron-working areas, but again there is no clear link with the magnetometry. Either the soilconditions were not right for earth resistance at the time, or the archaeology is too deep forearth resistance to pick up.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

19/43

GPR A at 10ns

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

20/43

GPR A at 13ns

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

21/43

GPR B at 10ns

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

22/43

GPR B at 13ns

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

23/43

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

24/43

Feature B. This vague mass of somewhat denser material does not reveal the form of anystructure. It appears to be about 30cm in height and spread quite widely. It may be a pile ofrubbish, perhaps even demolition material from the building at C. There is also a mass ofreadings on the magnetometry, but these are not particularly strong, apart from a point atthe eastern end of the mass of features.

Feature C. This is clearly a building. On the magnetometry, it is 7x14m, with a furtherouter wall to the north and a central support. On the radar, the outer wall and the westernwall do not show, but the other walls and the central support do. The missing features maybe due to later robbing. The remaining walls appear to be about 80-100cm wide and 60cmdeep. As the walls show on the magnetometry, the foundations are not likely to be just theusual flint. There is likely to be slag mixed into the foundations. The function of the buildingis not clear from its outline.

Feature D. This slight ditch feature makes up the northern and eastern part of theboundary of the enclosure in which features B and C sit. Their presence on both themagnetometry and GPR indicate that it has at least partially filled with slag. There seems

to be two linear features along part of the northern edge, but only the northern one showson the magnetometry results.

Feature E. The central feature here shows on the magnetometry as a particularly strongfeature and on the GPR and very dense material in a roughly square feature 3x3m wideand 40cm in depth, tapering somewhat at the top. It is most likely part of the primary ironworkings. The dark blue area around it is a less dense mass of material piles around thecentral feature.

Feature F. This is a very large pit feature with a depth of about a metre. It is quite strongon the magnetometry results, so it is likely to contain a lot of slag.

Feature G. This is part of the trackway passing between the two enclosures. The track isnot the same all along its length. It is only at this point that it seems to be metalled withiron slag, which shows strongly on the magnetometry and as dense material on the GPRon the same footprint.

Feature H. This slight linear feature marks the edge of the northern enclosure. It is notclear all the way along its length, being disturbed somewhat by pit feature F. This boundaryshows possibly as a double ditched feature on the magnetometry, but only the westernlinear shows as a dense feature on the GPR. There is a slight indication that the eastern

linear on the magnetometry shows as less dense material as a cut into feature M. Theeastern edge of the enclosure that shows on the magnetometry does not show on theGPR.

Feature I. This dense area of material, mostly slag, is either part of the enclosure featureH or something respecting its boundary. It is 20cm down and 60cm in height.

Feature J. This small feature, is a 2.5m diameter round feature which is roughly 30cm inheight. It is very strong on both the GPR and radar, making it likely to be a primary iron-working feature like E and N.

Feature K. Though it appears to be one feature, this is actually in two parts. The first part,to the south, is a L shaped with a slight depth. It is not particularly strong on themagnetometry. It is up against the second part, which is a circular feature, 1.2m in

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

25/43

diameter, with a hole in the middle. Whilst all of the other features disappear by 1.5m downfrom the surface, this circular feature can be seen in the same shape over 3m down, at thebottom of the recorded profile. It is most likely a stone built well.

Feature L. A mass of reasonable strong readings on the magnetometry results show up asbeing part of a single large pit on the GPR results. The pit is roughly 70cm in depth.

Feature M. This area shows as having a fairly strong response on the magnetometry andas a slightly dense pile of material on the GPR. It is higher on the eastern side than thewest, as if it is piled up in the corner of the enclosure.

Feature N. This feature shows very strongly on the magnetometry and the GPR results,making it most likely some form of primary iron-working structure. It is roughly 6 metreslong east to west and four metres wide north to south and 40cm in height. The eastern endis higher than the western end, with the smaller eastern end going from 30-70cm downand the larger western end 40-80cm down.

Metal Detector Finds

There were only two metal detector finds from the site, both from the area of the buildingon the southern edge of the settlement.

The first was a large iron square headed Roman construction nail.

The second was a Roman lead 'steelyard weight', pictured below. It has lost a smallamount from the broken apex loop, and the remainder is 506g, which is just over 1.5 libra.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

26/43

III. The Surrounding Landscape

This part of the report concerns the immediate landscape around the iron-working site.The annotated image below is colour coded as follows. Light blue is the floodplain. Darkblue for rivers or streams. Brown for modern occupation. Yellow for roads. Green for trees

or hedges. Pink for geophysics survey areas. Bright red for large pits. Dark red for groupsof small pits. Dashed black lines for Roman or other ancient roads or tracks.

A-D) These are survey areas A-D in the main survey above.

E-F) These are two Luff's Farm surveys in the Roads to Beauport Park section below.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

27/43

G) Whilst scanning the area with the magnetometer for likely archaeological features tofully survey, this area was found to have a lot of high readings. As the survey started, thecause of this was found to be a large number of metal tent pegs and other metal detritusleft from when the area was used for camping. No convincing archaeological features canbe seen amongst the debris.

H) The first driveway on Chapel Hill curves towards a house whose owners say that duringthe construction of the driveway, large timbers could be seen below. Nothing more is knowabout these timbers unfortunately. Their preservation may be due to either being relatively

modern, or preserved by the floodplain. There is the possibility that these are part of aRoman or label bridge across the River Brede.

I) The flood plain of the River Brede is important in itself. It can be guessed that theRomans had a wooden bridge across it, perhaps seen at H. It can also be guessed that ifthere was a port, then it would be downstream of any bridge structure. The road toPestalozzi is at the edge of the floodplain, just under the bank, so it is likely that any portlies under there. The cores taken at D show that there is considerable depth of alluviumclose to the bank, making a port a reasonable assumption.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

28/43

J) This trackway, first previously noted by WIRG (Hodgkinson 2001 p.5), was a possiblecandidate for a Roman trackway heading along the ridge. It survives as an agger betweenTQ79111736 and TQ79261738 before continuing as a terraceway via TQ79381739 andTQ79621746 before eventually joining Cottage Lane further to the east. Scanning with themagnetometer revealed some higher readings, but a quick excavation found only gravelrather than the expected slag surface and is most likely not Roman in origin. The track was

eventually found to exist on the 1778 Yeakell & Gardner map as a precursor to CottageLane. At its western end, it turns sharply to the south where the southern entrance toPestalozzi now runs. The track was most likely moved as it allowed the main house atOaklands Park to be overlooked, leaving the western entrance as the way to the house.

K) Before the western track to Beauport Park was found, it was supposed that such a trackmight cross the top of the hill after climbing it rather than turning to the east. No such trackwas found when scanning with the magnetometer, but there was one feature on interest,located at K. On the western side of a dry stream valley, a large area of high readings was

encountered. This was not simply metal junk. It was not fully surveyed, but it remainspossible that this is some sort of bloomery feature.

L) Investigating Margary's route for the road up the hill, the field here was scanned forremains. As the road meanders here, it was hoped that the road surface would berevealed on the inside of the curve, but nothing was found. It may be that any roadclimbing the hill, if indeed it does so, is further to the east.

M) It is recorded that at TQ788173, a slag road was discovered, presumably during theconstruction of Pestalozzi (Cleere & Crossley 1985 p.305). The track heading south-eastfrom the settlement heads in roughly the right direction for this, though its path is unclear

towards the eastern end of the main survey. This may be part of the track heading up toore pits at the top of the hill. This may be an alternative route for the Roman road toWestfield.

N) This shallow depression, recorded by WIRG (Hodgkinson 2001 p.5) may bearchaeological in nature, but no significant readings were found when scanning with themagnetometer.

O) This is a steep sided valley which still carries a trickle of water. At the southern end ofthe marked feature, the valley in the field has been filled in and the water redirected.

P) This feature area is actually two large ore pits either side of an east-west track. Its dateis unknown, but may well be Roman. The group of much smaller pits to the east are of adifferent construction and may well be of a different date.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

29/43

IV. The Search for the Road to Beauport Park

Introduction

After the main survey of the iron workings, we had yet to survey Luff's Farm, and started to

look for the road south that we expected to find as an alternative to Margary's course forthe road going to Westfield along Chapel Hill/Cottage Lane. Our beginning theory was thatit went up Chapel Hill as before, but then carried on south rather than turning sharply east.With this in mind, we scanned with the magnetometer across a large field to the south ofthe turning (TQ784171). There was no sign of a road crossing as expected, but there wasa very large magnetic anomaly in the side of a dry valley (approx TQ78491695), which wedidn't investigate further. Given its location in the side of the valley, one possibility is that itis a bloomery.

Gerald Brodribb

Gerald Brodribb is most famous for excavating the bath house at Beauport Park. What isless well known, as he never published anything about it, was that he also excavated anumber of sections across a slag metalled Roman road heading NNW out of BeauportPark. This was one of the reasons for suspecting that there may have been a roadbetween Oaklands Park and Beauport Park. It was only after we had started to search forthis road using geophysics that Trish started to properly look at his notebooks in BattleMuseum.

It seems that Gerald had already found the majority of the road we had been looking for,though his notes were rather sketchy. He had looked at this road both in the 1960's andthe 1990's, and there is a difference in approach between the two periods. Whilst earlier

he had mostly used a metal spike to probe for a metalled surface, he later turned todowsing. It is not clear how effective this was, but he seems to have the course of the roadbroadly correct. References to sites in Brodribb's notes will be discussed along with eachindividual site.

Road Course Notes

A) Oaklands Park. The road here can be seen amongst the iron workings leading westB) Geophysics Survey, Luffs Farm 1C) Geophysics Survey, Luffs Farm 2D) The road here follows Crazy Lane, which is a sunken lane in the part that follows the

Roman road. This would have been the old road into Sedlescombe, with Paygate Roadbeing more recent.E) Geophysics Survey, Battle Barn FarmF) Gerald Brodribb has the course of the road turning slightly in front of the club house ofthe golf course, but this has not been confirmed.G) Geophysics Survey, Norton's FarmH) The presumed course of the road here is merely extensions of the confirmed sectionsat G and I. The turn here would be as the road reaches the crest of the hill after climbingfrom the valley floor to the north.I) Geophysics Survey, Aldershaw FarmJ) The short section of road shown here was excavated by Gerald Brodribb, leading northout of Beauport ParkK) Beauport Park

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

30/43

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

31/43

Luff's Farm 1

As there was the possibility that the dry ground to the west of Chapel Hill at Luff's Farm(TQ78291749) contained an extension of the iron workings seen to the east, we decided tosurvey this area. Initial scanning produced some high readings arranged in a linearfashion, and our initial thoughts were of some sort of utility such as an electrical cable. The

geology on Luff's Farm is a mixture of clay head lower down the hill and Ashdown Sandshigher up.

Luff's Farm Results

Position North East Description

G1 620 500

G2 460 500

RS1 493.85 531.11 SW corner of S gatepost of gate E edge of field

RS2 534.57 530.18 NW corner of fence post at N end of fence, E edge of field

Positioning

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

32/43

Luffs Farm Interpretation

Modern features are shown in red, archaeological in green and uncertain in purple. Theapproximate location of the Roman water line is a light blue shading and Margary's coursefor the Roman road is shown as a dashed line.

While no further settlement was found, we had unwittingly stumbled on part of the road wehad been searching for. There was what appeared to be a pair of tracks, which headedtowards a similar pair in the main settlement to the east. What is unclear is whether thisreally is a pair of tracks, or just a larger single track which has had the top of the camberremoved by ploughing. In support of the former, the track in the main settlement is also apair, and these would be buried in deep enough colluvium to avoid the plough. Also, at thesouthern end of the Luff's Farm survey, the two tracks seem to meet just beforedisappearing under the hedgeline. The purple feature may be part of the northern track, ora piece of modern junk. After the outside track disappears into the hedge, it doesn't seemto make a definitive appearance to the north, which also supports the idea of two separatetracks. Of course, there is a slight hill here, so a land slip may be the cause of

disappearing and merging tracks.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

33/43

Also shown on the map is 'Timber'. This is a point where the occupants of the large houseset back from the road say they had found some large timbers when work was done ontheir driveway. Details are slight unfortunately, but there is the possibility that they havefound timbers associated with either a bridge or port, possibly even Roman. Theirdriveway exits near where Paygate Road and Chapel Hill meet

The course of the track, first to the west, before turning south, may seem strange at first.The obvious reason for this course is to avoid the worst of the hill be skirting around thebottom of it.

Luff's Farm 2

From the northern end of Luff's Farm, it was clear that the road headed broadly along thehedgeline between the two fields east of Paygate Road. This hedgeline also represents adrop of about 2 metres from the field above to the east, down to the field below to thewest. A significant lynchet. Scanning around both fields, a broad scatter of high readingswas found in the south-east corner of the western field (TQ78231715). It didn't seem

coherent enough to make a road, but we decided to survey the area anyway.

Luff's Farm 2 Results

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

34/43

Position North East Description

G1 420 500

G2 500 500

RS1 283.53 533.85 S edge of fencepost, first fencepost into fieldfrom west end of fenceline, northern fence

RS2 507.49 491.23 SW corner of S gatepost of gate SE corner of field

Positioning

Luff's Farm 2 Interpretation

It is clear that road has been ploughed out at this point, which is not surprising given theheight difference between the two fields. The debris from this is visible as a broadly messyarea (green shading), with one coherent mass of the road surface still visible in the south-east corner of the survey area (green). A further feature visible on the western side of the

survey area (in purple) is most likely geological, but there is a possibility that it isarchaeological. A metal detector detector survey in the area turned up no finds, but did findsome of the iron slag from which the road was made. The expected course of the road is

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

35/43

shown as a dashed line.

The highest point that road would have crossed on this hill is just to the south of the surveyarea. From there, it continued south down Crazy Lane, which is a sunken road.

Nothing was found Brodribb's notes about Luff's farm, one of the nearby residents

remember him visiting to 'walk along the Roman road', so it was clear he knew about it. Hemay have seen iron slag in the field whilst it was still under plough.

While we were carrying out the second Luff's Farm survey, a nearby resident brought us apiece of glassware to look at (pictured below). It turned out to be a Roman strap handledvessel, in perfect condition apart from the concretions on the surface. This was most likelyfrom a roadside cemetery, and would perhaps have contained perfume (Rudling perscomm.)

Roman Glass Vessel

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

36/43

Battle Barn Farm

The Roman road continues down Crazy Lane, exiting slightly to the east of the currentcourse of the road and crosses the A21, where we pick it up with our next survey at BattleBarn Farm (TQ78241670). The A21 is the lowest point travelled by the road after itsdescent down Crazy Lane, as the ground starts to rise to the south. Gerald Brodribb had

previously mentioned that the road headed up Crazy Lane, so he was probably aware ofthe road at this point. Further to this, an Ordnance Survey record card, apparently pennedby E. Curwen, mentioned A few cinders found here at TQ78221657, which is shown onthe interpretation. From here, Brodribb has the road going through the Club House ofSedlescombe Golf Course, with a turn of about 7 degrees at around TQ78381607 tocontinue on to our next survey, at Norton's Farm.

Battle Barn Farm Results

Position North East Description

G1 500 500

G2 500 420

RS1 540.11 371.53 S edge of E gatepost of gate NW corner of field

RS2 489.61 374.36 Edge of TP pointing into field of second TP up road

Positioning

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

37/43

Battle Barn Farm Interpretation

The course of the road is shown as a dashed line. Modern features are shown in red, theroad surface in the survey is shown in light green, a section of the road found by scanningand recorded using the total station is shown in dark green. As with the first survey at Luff'sFarm, there isn't one complete surface showing for the road. Again it looks as if the top of

the camber is missing, with only the sides remaining. On the south-east, not only is part ofthe road missing, having been removed at some point, but most of the eastern side hashad a portion slip eastwards. One side of the road was scanned for further to the south.Thinking we had the road surface as a whole, we only recorded one side of the road. It ismost likely that it is the eastern side. This scanned area showed that the road turned to thesouth-east, into the woodland. The road in this area may seem to curve a lot, but on theground, it can be seen to be avoiding the hill rising to the west. The 'Cinder' marked is theposition given by Curwen, but the correct position for his find is most likely slightly to theeast.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

38/43

Norton's Farm

Continuing from Battle Barn Farm and through Sedlescombe Gold Course, the next surveyis at Norton's Farm (TQ78611560). The land here slopes down towards the stream beforeclimbing the other side. Brodribb's notes here are somewhat confused. He has the correctcourse for the road as we have found it, but he has that stopping at the stream. He also

gives two additional tracks coming in from the north-east, which he has joining near thepylon (black black on the southern end of the interpretation) before continuing south toBeauport Park. Neither of these additional tracks show on the geophysics. The confusionmay have arisen due to the local geology, Ashdown Sands, which at this point contain anumber of blocks of iron rich sandstone, which show on the results as a magneticallymessy area, at least up the slope where the underlying geology is not buried byColluvium.. Brodribb's probing most likely found some of this geology, leading him tobelieve there were additional tracks.

Norton's Farm Results

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

39/43

Position North East Description

G1 580 540

G2 460 540

RS1 607.48 501.21 SE of metal gatepost, east side of gate, N edge of field

RS2 567.98 688.04 S edge of W gatepost of gate NE of field

Positioning

Norton's Farm Interpretation

Modern features are in red. The road surface is shown in green, which again is ploughedaway in the centre of the camber. The road survives better further down the hill, havingbeen completely ploughed away in some areas up slope. The dashed line represents thecourse of the road. The curve in the road is due to the approach to the stream, as theRomans often seem to cross water head on. Across the stream, the road climbs the hill

and makes a turn to the south to head towards Beauport Park. The exact point of the turnis conjectural, based upon the heading from the survey to the south, at Aldershaw Farm.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

40/43

Aldershaw Farm

After climbing the valley side and turning south, we pick up the road again at Aldershaw(TQ78671521), following the stream on the final part of its journey south to Beauport Park.There are no more significant alignment changes after this point until the outskirts ofBeauport Park itself is reached. Unfortunately, the grid placing here was not ideal, so only

half of the road is represented in the results. In addition to the geophysics survey, probingrevealed a consistently solid surface slightly further to the north. A small test excavationrevealed a mixture of the local sandstone geology and bloomery slag, in line with thecourse of the road shown by the survey. Due to Brodribb's confusion regarding the courseof the road at Norton's Farm, he did not pick up this particular alignment, thinking it was onthe other side of the stream.

Aldershaw Farm Results

Position North East Description

G1 500 500

G2 420 500

RS1 615.66 500.83 E corner of wooden building, NW corner of field

RS2 605.77 495.72 S corner of wooden building, NW corner of field

Positioning

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

41/43

Aldershaw Farm Interpretation

The road surface is shown in green. Modern features are shown in red. The purple featureis most likely geological. The expected course of the road is shown as a dashed line.

Discussion

The slag construction, lack of side ditches and winding course is consistent with the tracksfound around Footlands (Lemon 1950) and Bodiam (Staveley 2010). Unlike a traditionalRoman Road, such as Stane Street, the builders are much more conscious of the terrain,avoiding steep climbs wherever possible. It is clear that these tracks were built by acompletely different agency to that of other Roman roads. This is most likely to be theClassis Britannica, whose ownership of this area has been attributed as an iron-workingestate. Whilst this particular track no doubt ends at Beauport Park, there may be furthertracks in the network. Crowhurst Park, to the south-west of Beauport Park is also anindustrial scale site, and a further track may head in that direction. Whilst the alignmentsgiven for the areas not surveyed are not perfect, the course is broadly correct, and mostly

matches what Brodribb had found in his investigations. The width of the road is generallyabout 9 to 10 metres wide, which is comparable with the Sussex Greensand Way.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

42/43

The Route to Westfield

If the route continues south to Beauport Park, where does that leave Margary's route toWestfield? Unlike other parts of the road network in Sussex, he never excavated that partof the road, his only evidence being two 'aggers' and a 'hollow' (Margary 1965 p.229).There are problems with discounting the route completely.

Firstly, the route starting at the iron workings in Oaklands Park and leading south actuallycrosses and is perpendicular to the route from the north, as it crosses the River Brede.This would suggest that the route ends at Oaklands Park, and the road south is a separateroute. This is not necessarily a problem if the network in this area is merely designed tolink significant sites rather than provide a continuous route, but this anomaly must be takeninto consideration. It may be that the south-east track out of the settlement continues toWestfield, which would be a much more reasonable incline than straight up the hill.

Secondly, Brodribb found some evidence of the route. In his diary entry for 28/01/66, hementions a visit to Church Place Farm, Westfield (TQ811150), where he finds a line of slag

in line with the Oaklands Park to Westfield road. As for the north-south road throughWestfield, Brodribb spent some time from 1964 to 1965 excavating a section of the road inLittle Hides Wood (TQ816144) which he describes as being made of iron slag and 36 feet(11 metres) wide (Entry dated 19/09/65), which is slightly wider than the SussexGreensand Way and the Oaklands Park to Beauport Park road.

Examination of these roads is definitely warranted, but is beyond the scope of the currentproject and will be examined at a later date.

V. Discussion

The main site was not as extensive as expected. This may have been due to amisrepresentation of the slag bank as previously discussed. Nevertheless, this is definitelyan industrial scale site. The presence of probably masonry building on site raises not onlythe possibility that it was run by the Classis, but gives the opportunity to prove it, were thatbuilding to have a roof made of CL:BR stamped tiles. The sites presence on the RiverBrede also makes it a strong possibility that it was a port, most likely serving all of theother industrial sites in the area, namely Beauport, Crowhurst, Footlands and Chitcombe.Most of the iron produced at these sites would have left the area from both here and the

port at Bodiam. The river, plus roads leading in three directions would have made the siteat Oaklands Park an important transport hub as well as an industrial site.

7/27/2019 Snuffler 1304

43/43

VII. References

Brodribb, G.The Road Network in the Habitation Area at Beauport Park Unpublished MS inBattle MuseumCleere & CrossleyThe Iron Industry of the Weald, Leicester University Press 1985Hodgkinson, J.Oaklands Romano-British ironworking site, Westfield, Wealden Iron, 2nd Ser.

No. 21, 2001Hodgkinson, J. The Wealden Iron Industry, The History Press 2008Lemon, C.H.Fieldwork During The Season 1951 Battle & Dist. HS Trans, 1950-51Lemon & HillThe Romano-British Site at Bodiam, Sussex Archaeological Collections Vol. 1041966Lower, M.A.Historical and Archaeological Notices of the Iron Works of the County ofSussex, Sussex Archaeological Collections Vol. 2 1849Margary, I.Roman Ways in the Weald, Phoenix House, Third Edition 1965Staveley, D. A Geophysical Survey of the Roman Road between Bodiam and SandhurstCross, Grey List Report, 2010Straker, E.Wealden Iron, 1931