Download a previously unknown roman road

A PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN ROMAN
ROAD
OFFHAM TO THE GREENSAND WAY NEAR BARCOMBE MILLS
MA Dissertation University of Sussex
By ROBERT WALLACE
Candidate No 46880
Abstract
The site of Barcombe Roman Villa lies in a field to the west of Culver Farm and has
been extensively excavated and investigated in a long-running archaeological
programme since 2001. In the summer of 2005 a further project was launched with the
intention of studying the archaeology in the vicinity of the villa, and placing the
complex in its landscape. The tracing of a previously unknown Roman road has
become one significant aspect of this project, and the work undertaken to date forms
the basis of this thesis.
From an initial observation of flint scatters in Court House field, an extensive
programme of targeted survey and excavation has been undertaken. Fieldwalking,
resistivity survey, trial excavations and open excavation have been employed within
five distinct sites, located in fields around Culver Farm. The fieldwork is presented
and discussed in the following chapters, along with a detailed discussion of source
material relating to Roman roads in Britain and past studies whether archaeological
or historical.
This dissertation attempts to establish the presence and nature of a previously
unknown Roman road between Offham and Barcombe, East Sussex. The roads
alignment, purpose and destination are hypothesised based on the results from all the
work undertaken to date. This project is part of an ongoing series of excavations and
various aspects of work are planned for future seasons. Ultimately, it is the goal of the
author to unequivocally prove the presence of a Roman road in this area and to
establish its full extent and alignment, thus placing the road in its appropriate
historical context.
i
Candidate No 46880
Acknowledgements
I am extremely grateful to the following people, for without their help this project
would not have made the conclusions it has done.
Rosie Cummings for taking time off work to come down and supervise this year’s
excavation. For her support of this project since its instigation in 2005, and for proof
reading and formatting this dissertation.
Rhw Mitcheson for his weekend visits to help excavate and plan, for his previous help
in supervising the excavation in Court House field, and supervising in 2006 in
Culvermead. For his support of this project since its instigation in 2005 and also for
his help in proof reading this dissertation.
Nick Carter, for taking time off work to help supervise this year’s excavation, and
previous year’s excavations on this project. For his support of this project since its
instigation in 2005
David Millburn for stepping in on week two of this year’s excavation till the end as
site supervisor.
Keith Butler for supervising at the weekends for me. And for his previous help in the
2005 excavations.
The archaeologists and volunteers who have helped since 2005:
2005. Charlie Hammond, Andy Bell, Nadia Glassop, Johan Kotze, Pipa Mitcheson,
Leon Wang, Paul McGarrity, Sue Birks, Pam Sherlock, John Atkin, Diormaid Walshe,
Dave Cudmore, Michael Fairbrother, Barrie Bassett, Kev Buttell, Keith Edgar.
2006. Hannah Lewis-Perry (Finds supervisor), Charlie Hammond, Seth Wheeler,
Steve White, Tina Paphitis, Wayne Saunders, Lorna Hilbourne, Tom Harrison.
ii
Candidate No 46880
2007. Hannah Lewis-Perry (Finds Supervisor), Peter Boardman, Laura Jarvis, Ben
Nattrass, Aida Kowalska, James Clare, Lawrence McKee, Ryzard Nowobilski, Gabbie
Turney, Laura Welford, Ann Best, Tomaz Wirzibcki, James Wallace, Oliver
Cummings-Cove, Harry Graham. Darren Hilbourne, Lorna Hilbourne, Tom Harrison,
John Crawfurd.
Others who have helped in this project are:
Mr Derek Wise for the use of his shed and garage for finds processing and storage,
and for giving permission to allow us to carry out geophysical survey on his land.
Chris Butler, David Rudling, Peter Drewett and Luke Barber for their continuing
support, both academically and throughout the field work.
A special thank you to Sara Newsome from English Heritage for coming to site to
carry out a GPS survey of our trench, and for projecting the line of the road for us
using Autocad. The University of Sussex for allowing the use of the RM15 resistivity
machine and the licensed dongle. Also for the tools that where borrowed.
Sussex Archaeological Society for the use of their RM15 resistivity machine, and for
advertising the excavation in Sussex Past magazine.Judy Medrington as ever helpful at
the Institute of Archaeology (IOA), and Katie Meheux from the IOA library .
Thanks to Tom Harrison for all his help with Auto Cad and map rendering.
Special thanks go to the Stroude family, Mark, Harold and Meg, without whose
permission this project would not have started.
iii
Candidate No 46880
Contents
page
Abstract
i
Acknowledgements
ii
Chapter 1
Introduction
1
Chapter 2
Methodology
8
Chapter 3
The History and Literature of Roman Road Studies
27
Chapter 4
Roman Roads
33
Chapter 5
The Fieldwork Programme
51
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Future Work
80
Bibliography
87
iv
Candidate No 46880
List of Figures
page
Cover
Illustration
Map Showing the projection of the Roman Road, Based on the
1
Geophysical survey results from Barcombe Roman Villa
2
Flint scatters in Court House Field
3
The London-Lewes road and its alternative route as presented
by Margary
4
Aerial photograph of Stonehenge, 1906
5
Shadow sites, soil and crop marks in aerial photography
6
Aerial photography. Top: shadow site, Iron-age hillfort.
Middle: soil mark site, Neolithic enclosure. Bottom: crop mark
site, Romano-British field system
7
Methods for fieldwalking
8
Fluxgate Gradiometer Data set collection from Grange Park,
Northamptonshire
9
Resistivity survey results from Culvermead 2005
10
Crop marks showing the Roman road from Bath to Silchester
11
The principle roads of Roman Britain
12
Section and aerial views of Stane Street. Top: South Downs
close to Bignor Hill. Bottom: Nore Wood
13
Map showing known military sites in Britain
14
Illustration of a groma
15
Metalled surface on the via principalis at Usk, Gwent
16
Paved road at Vindolanda
17
Road construction
Ordnance Survey 1:25000, Sheet No, 122. © Crown copyright
Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved. Inset photo showing
excavation of the road in the 2007 Pond Field season.
v
Cover
Candidate No 46880
18
The study area showing the relevant fields and the locations of
Culver Farm and Barcombe Roman Villa
19
Aerial photos from the 1947 and 1960’s
20
Marked out trench in Courthouse Field
21
Flint scatters in Court House Field.
22
Location of evaluation trenches in Pond Field
23
The first post-hole in Pond Field
24
The second post-hole in Pond Field
25
Map showing location of open excavations in Pond Field
26
Straw bails and cleaning of flint surface in Pond Field 2007
27
Geophysics and trenches in Culver Mead, 2006.
28
Map showing the projected line of the Roman Road
29
Geophysics results from Dunstalls Field 2007
30
Road network of the Roman Empire
31
Wooden timbers from Culvermead
vi
Candidate No 46880
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Barcombe Roman Villa
In 1999 the Mid Sussex Field Archaeology Team (hereafter MSFAT) carried out a
programme of fieldwalking and geophysical survey in Dunstalls field, Barcombe East
Sussex. MSFAT, under the directorship of Chris Butler, were led to the site by the vast
amount of artefacts, especially ceramic building material, exposed after ploughing. The
results of the field walking strongly suggested that there was a possible Roman villa on
the site (Wallace 2006 p1-2).An ensuing geophysical survey confirmed that this was most
certainly the case (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Geophysical survey results from Barcombe Roman Villa (Gammon et al 2006, p1)
In 2000, after kind permission was given by Harold Stroude the land owner, a full open
excavation on the villa complex started. In the following seven years, a series of open
excavations exposed a large winged corridor villa and a related farm complex, along with
1
Candidate No 46880
archaeological features dating from the Bronze Age through to the Saxon period. This
project is still ongoing.
The Landscape Project
In 2005 following a discussion with Chris Butler (Co Director Barcombe Roman villa) a
research project was undertaken looking at the archaeology around Barcombe Roman
villa. The project comprised field walking, geophysical survey and excavations. Placing
the villa site within its landscape could potentially lead us to clues about further activities,
such as agriculture or industrial features. A number of interesting aspects and research
questions were considered. Where did the labour force live? If industrial then where is the
site in relation to the villa? Furthermore, what type of industrial activity was taking place
at this time?
This dissertation concentrates on one of the most significant archaeological remains
found to date around Barcombe Roman villa.
The Roman Road: How it all started
In the summer of 2005 the farmer Mark Stroude drew our attention to several major flint
scatterings across Court House Field. The flint scattering ran across the field on a NE-SW
axis (see Figure 2). Further discussion revealed that Margary, one of the pioneers in the
study of Roman roads in Britain, had projected a possible road route running on the west
side of the River Ouse, and consequently through the area of Court House Field. This
2
Candidate No 46880
later proved to be a misinterpretation of Margary’s writings (Margary 1933, p32), but
nevertheless the possible presence of a Roman road was the initial impetus encouraging
further investigation of the flint scatters.
Figure 2: Flint scatters in Court House Field (photographs taken by the author).
A geophysical survey was inconclusive but trial trench excavation confirmed the
presence of a roadway (the work is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5: Fieldwork), and
the next 2 years of archaeological work has been specifically directed at exposing and
investigating further areas of the road. This dissertation explores the story of the Road
Project so far, with specific reference to each individual phase of work and the
conclusions drawn based on these results.
The Study Area
For the purpose of this project, two main routes of previously discovered Roman roads
will be examined; these will be the London to Lewes road, and the Greensand Way
3
Candidate No 46880
running from Barcombe Mills to Hardham on Stane Street (Margary 1965, p165). These
two roads are the most important in this investigation, one will give a possible reason for
the existence of this previously unknown Roman road, and the other will give its possible
destination or start point, these will be discussed in more detail later.
Ivan D. Margary traced the London to Lewes road through a series of excavations and
research between 1930’s and 1960’s. Margary states that he excavated 150 yards of the
road where it crosses at Barcombe Mills, and that he recovered Roman Samian ware
dating to the mid second century and coarse ware pottery dating to the first century. This
section of the road then carries on to Malling Down crossing the river Ouse again. In his
conclusion he states that the road was clearly made as a direct route from London to the
Ashdown Forest followed by 11 miles of virtually undeviating road to Malling Down,
creating access to the iron working area by Maresfield and access to the South Downs at
Malling. In discussing the position of the London-Lewes Road, Margary suggests that it
is in fact the middle option and that two further potential alignments could have existed
instead; one to the East of the River Ouse through Isfield Village and Ringmer to link up
with another Roman road at Glyndebourne and one to the West of the River Ouse after
the river crossing at Isfield heading towards Barcombe via the West bank of the Ouse to
Hamsey or Offham (See Figure 3) (Margary 1933, p31-33).
4
Candidate No 46880
Figure 3: The London-Lewes road and its alternative route as presented by Margary.
Based on the Ordnance Survey 1:25000, Sheet No, 122. © Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All
rights reserved.
5
Candidate No 46880
As mentioned above, it was initially thought that Margary had suggested the presence of
this western route via Hamsey and Offham, and that the Court House Field findings
reflected this route. However, on further reading it appears that Margary was merely
suggesting where the London-Lewes road might have been, had its final destination or
purpose been slightly different. He does not, therefore, ever state that a road on this route
existed, and in fact by identifying the London-Lewes road on its currently accepted
alignment he is as good as stating that no such road exists. As important as Margary’s
work is it should be recognised that he did not carry out excavations at all his sites
(Rudling 2003, p114) and therefore some of his findings could be put down to
speculation.
The Greensand way is also significant to this thesis; the route runs from Barcombe Mills,
where it joins the London to Lewes road (North- South) and Westward to Hardham
where it meets Stane Street (Margary 1965, p165-166).
Hypothesis and Presentation
This dissertation concentrates on one of the aspects of archaeological study found to date
around Barcombe Roman villa. The premise on which all the following work is based on
is simply that a Roman road existed between the 1st and 4th centuries running from
Offham and Hamsey north-east towards the junction of the Greensand Way and the
London-Lewes road at Barcombe. The purpose of the following work is to establish the
existence of this road, and in doing so identify its exact alignment, extent and physical
nature.
6
Candidate No 46880
Chapter 2 details the methodology used in the overall project, with specific explanations
where necessary. Chapter 3 deals with the significant work undertaken in the study of
Roman roads, and the main authors on the subject. Chapter 4 discusses the nature of
roads in the Roman period, specifically their construction, use and economic factors
relating to them. Chapters 5 and 6 present and discuss all the fieldwork undertaken to
date, and the conclusions that can be drawn based on this project. Finally, a brief
discussion of future work and an overall summary of this thesis are presented in Chapter
7.
7
Candidate No 46880
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
As previously mentioned the overall project is a much wider view of the archaeology
around Barcombe Roman villa, and the methodology below covers the entire project.
This project requires several different types of methods although in some cases only
certain methods have been applied to specific areas. Chapter 5 discusses the
implementation of these methods, and explains where and why certain approaches have
been used or disused.
Background Research
A review of the major authors on the subject of Roman roads, and specifically those
concerning East Sussex and Barcombe, was undertaken. This work is discussed in detail
in the following Chapter but briefly this includes an overview of contemporary Roman
sources, a look at the early approaches to the archaeology of Roman roads and the more
recent works relating to this. The main protagonists in the study of roads, such as
Margary and Davies are discussed in more detail, and where the work or theories of any
of the authors is relevant to the current project it is discussed in that context.
A detailed study of our current understanding of Roman roads was compiled through
reference to previous excavations and written works devoted to the subject. The results of
this are presented in Chapter 5 and are aimed at explaining the various factors that may
be relevant in any archaeological approach to Roman roads. Briefly, this includes the
8
Candidate No 46880
construction methods, upkeep and repair, the nature and function of roads in the Roman
period, their use, economy, origins and development.
A National Monuments and Records (NMR) search was carried out for the area at county
council level. A further search at NMR offices at Swindon investigated aerial
photography. A simple walk over survey on existing areas such as the route of the
Greensand Way at Barcombe Cross was also thought important and undertaken where
necessary.
Aerial Photography
Aerial photography can be a very useful tool for the archaeologist, its history started in
Britain in 1906 when Lt P. H. Sharpe took vertical (from directly above) and oblique
(towards the horizon) photographs of Stonehenge from an army war balloon.
Figure 4: Aerial photograph of Stonehenge, 1906 (Wilson 2000, p17).
9
Candidate No 46880
Using a hot air balloon was limited because of the lack of manoeuvrability, especially in
this time period (Wilson 2000 p6). Modern day hot air balloons are more controllable and
in 1981 the Egyptian archaeologist Kent Weeks took two hot air balloons from the USA
to Egypt to take aerial photographs of the Theban necropolis (Weeks 1999 p26-31).
Although even with today’s technologies hot air balloon flights are not fully reliable, I
had a hot air balloon flight cancelled in January 2007 in Luxor Egypt because of strong
winds.
With the introduction of aeroplanes the full potential of aerial photography was apparent.
Training was given to pilots and photographers to gather intelligence in the First World
War 1914-1918. After the First World War training in aerial photography was continued
by the newly formed RAF and some of the officers expressed interest in the earth works
they were photographing, this laid the building blocks for British archaeological air
photography (Wilson 2000 p16).
As with all types of photography the weather plays a big part and in aerial photography
low cloud cover can effectively rule it out. Bright sunny days can cast shadows and
overcast and dull days are not ideal. The photographer on the ground can create artificial
light unlike their counter parts in the air, but on ideal days the results can be amazing.
The seasons also play a part in the final results.
10
Candidate No 46880
A note worth mentioning is that the camera is only taking pictures of what you can see;
there are three types of images of archaeological sites that aerial photography can
highlight, these are shadow sites, soil mark sites and crop mark sites. The diagram below
explains how each of the sites can be discovered using aerial photography.
Figure 5: Shadow sites, soil and crop marks in aerial photography (Drewett 1999, p38).
Photographs of Shadow sites ideally should be taken on sunny winter days when the
vegetation is at a low point, and several shots of the site should be taken throughout the
day as depending on where the sun is will result in what shadows are cast. Soil marks can
be seen in fields without crops or grasses, ploughed fields are ideal for this. Crop marks
obviously require crops to be growing in the fields, cereals like wheat and oats are ideal
for this (Drewett 1999 p37-42). (See Figure 6 below).
11
Candidate No 46880
Figure 6: Aerial photography. Top: shadow site, Iron-age hillfort. Middle: soil mark site,
Neolithic enclosure. Bottom: crop mark site, Romano-British field system. (Drewett
1999, p39-40).
12
Candidate No 46880
The new wave of technologies are now with us and satellite images can also shed light on
archaeological sites, the main advantage being they are orbiting the earth all the time, 365
days a year. The disadvantage is quite simply the cost, to be able to zoom in on a field
and get total clarity you would have to subscribe to a provider, the free images on Google
Earth for example only let you zoom in to a certain point, whereas if you subscribe to
Google Earth then you could possibly read a number plate on a parked car.
Aerial photography has been used in this project at two main stages; an initial
examination of aerial and satellite images were undertaken prior to excavation. These
were consulted from the archive collections held at the NMR offices in Swindon, and
from on-line sources such as Google Earth and Microsoft virtual Earth The results of this
examination are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. In the 2007 phase of excavations
in Pond Field (see Chapter 5), aerial photographs will be taken of the site postexcavation. These will be taken by a company called Aerial-Cam, they use digital and
SLR cameras which can be elevated to a height of 22 metres above ground level and the
photos are taken using a remote device (Pers comm. Adam Stanford).
Fieldwalking
The first method of archaeological work to be used on the fields in this project was
fieldwalking. These fields were set out into 20 meter grids using basic surveying methods
and triangulation with tapes. The grids were designated letters and numbers, for example
A1, A2, A3 etc then B1, B2, B3 and so on. These grids were then walked on 20 meter
13
Candidate No 46880
transects (see Figure 7), and all the finds bagged and identified by their designated grid
numbers, these finds were viewed and identified by an expert.
Figure 7: Methods for fieldwalking (Drewett 1999, p46).
Fieldwalking can be a valuable method when attempting to identify potential
archaeological sites. According to Darvill & McWhirr for example, “fired clayed bricks
and tiles frequently constitute the most numerous, and certainly the heaviest, single
category of artefact from many sites occupied during the Roman period in Britain. When
recovered from the surface of fields in significant quantities bricks and tiles are taken to
imply the existence of substantial buildings under the plough soil and can be used to plot
the extent of settlement.” (Darvill, McWhirr 1984, p240). It was such a frequency of finds
during fieldwalking that led to the discovery of Barcombe Roman Villa, and a similar
process has been successfully employed to identify road sites during the course of this
project.
14
Candidate No 46880
Geophysics/Resistivity
The second method to be used in the archaeological process was geophysical survey;
resistivity was the preferred option. The basic method for Resistivity involves sending an
electrical current through the ground using a mobile probe which in this case is connected
to a Geoscan RM15 machine, this current is fed to 2 fixed probes in the ground
positioned at least 15 metres from the survey grid. The machine measures the speed at
which the current completes one circuit from the machine to the probes and back to the
machine, this is read as resistance, and features such as buried walls, rubble/hardcore,
roads or tracks can show up as high resistance whereas ditches, slots drains or gullies
show up as low resistance as normally more moisture are contained within them (Gaffney
& Gater 2003, p26).
While resistivity has been the sole method of geophysical survey used in the project so
far, for future work magnetometry and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) will be
considered if it is believed that the results will benefit the project.
There are several types of magnetometers for Magnetometry survey; in the UK Fluxgate
magnetometers are generally used and if required on this survey then this will be the
preferred equipment. The basic principle of a magnetometry survey is to identify the
changes in the Earths magnetic field; these can be particularly good at indicating burnt
areas such as hearths or metal objects. The Fluxgate system ‘takes continuous
15
Candidate No 46880
measurements of the relative vertical change in the intensity of field strength’ (Bahn 2001
p272). This allows ditches and walls to be observed (See Figure 8) (Gaffney & Gater
2003, p61) (Bahn 2001, p272).
Figure 8: Fluxgate Gradiometer Data set collection from Grange Park,
Northamptonshire (Gaffney & Gater 2003, p71).
GPR has been used in archaeology since the 1970’s and similar to most technologies has
advanced greatly since that pioneering time. The GPR transmitter and receiving antenna
emit and receive low pulses of electromagnetic energy (radar). When it is pulled along
the ground objects or materials which consist of different electromagnetic energy cause a
reflection of radar back at the receiving antenna, these then can be viewed on a screen.
One big advantage of GPR is the depth it can read at, and as a result you get a time slice
or map slice (Gaffney & Gater 2003, p74) (Bahn 2001, p178).
The resistivity surveys were targeted on areas that showed concentrations of finds or were
thought to lie on the projected line of the Roman road.
16
Candidate No 46880
To be able to view the data form the geophysical survey, it has to downloaded to a
computer, the software used view the data is made by a company called Geoscan, who
licence this software, you require a dongle to download and view data (the dongle is the
licence). The licence used for this project is owned by the University of Sussex.
Test Pitting/Trial Trenching
The third method used was test pitting or trial trenching; again these were influenced on
the fieldwalking and resistivity results although where the resistivity showed no positive
results test pitting or trial trenching were not ruled out. Explanations of the specific
occasions and the implementation of trial excavations and their results are dealt with in
detail within Chapter 5: Fieldwork. Trail trenches have be used for this project rather than
test pitting. The trail trenches are excavated using a wheeled JCB excavator, the bucket
used for this is what is known as a ‘ditching bucket’, and it has width of 1.6 metres. There
is not a standard length of trench they vary from trench to trench, it will be dependant on
what archaeological anomalies appear, these trenches are excavated to evaluate the
archaeological features in a specific area, and help plan future work.
Open Excavations
The fourth method used was full open excavation: Once the area for open excavation has
been set and marked out, a mechanical JCB will strip back the top soil and sub soil to a
depth where archaeological anomalies can be seen, the youngest will be seen first. This
17
Candidate No 46880
level is then cleaned back using mattocks, and trowels depending on what the anomaly is.
Once the area is cleaned and archaeological feature have been identified. They will then
be excavated using a half section method, where one half of the fill or fills is removed. A
context number will be issued to each archaeological feature for example a post hole will
have a cut context 1 and a fill context 2, if there is more than one fill or cut in a feature
subsequent numbers will be allocated. These will be recorded on a context record sheet,
and each context will have its own context sheet these will be written up by the person
excavating the feature. The half excavated feature will then be recorded by section
drawing at a scale of 1:10. Once the section drawing has been finished a level will be
taken of the string line and will be recorded on the context sheet, and on the section
drawing. A dumpy level will be used for this task. A Bench Mark has been set up at a
point in the headlands and the level has been given by using a satellite GPS system which
English Heritage used on our behalf. Photographs using 135 SLR colour slide camera,
and a 135 SLR black and white film camera, and also digital photos will be taken. A
photo board with the context numbers, a North arrow (pointing North) and a scale will all
be included in the photo. A plan of the site including all the archaeological features will
be drawn up at a scale of 1:20.
Post-Excavation Work
The post excavation work will comprise of writing a grey literature report which a copy
will be lodge with the NMR at East Sussex County Council. The pottery from the
excavation will be given to Malcolm Lyne and a pottery report will written. The Ceramic
Building Material will be looked at by Rosie Cummings and a written report will be
18
Candidate No 46880
produced. Other finds will be looked at Luke Barber and a written report will also be
produced.
The finds at the end of the overall project will be offered to Lewes Castle Museum.
Two lectures will be given on the conclusions made to date, one for the University of
Sussex Archaeology Society in May 2008 and the other will be at Barcombe village hall
for the local community in October 2007.
Archaeological Theory
The previous studies of Roman roads are discussed in detail in the following chapter, and
as mentioned above an understanding of this work is an essential part of the project
methodology. The theoretical positions taken by these studies range from antiquarian,
cultural-historical, processual and post-processual. Although a detailed study of these
approaches is not really necessary here, it is worth understanding how the theoretical
basis affected or influenced the methods, results and conclusions. Similarly, addressing
the theoretical points of view of this project is helpful in establishing and understanding
the methodology or practices, and at the same time supporting the conclusions drawn
from the results. For the purpose of this paper, a brief description of the main different
theories will be examined, and an explanation of the theoretical umbrella that this project
has undertaken.
Gamble states that Cultural History is the default setting for the majority of
archaeological enquiry. The ‘cultural historical’ archaeologist collects data in a set
19
Candidate No 46880
chronological and geographical order; this can then tell us when change happened and
from where. These early pioneers of Archaeology gave the modern archaeologist the
principles of stratigraphy and stylistic analysis (Gamble 2004, p22-23). The likes of
William Flinders Petrie gave us seriation to give a chronological view using pottery
sherds (Orton et el 1993, p189). In essence the ‘cultural historical’ approach uses the
description of sites made in to a database and then theories are tested by applying them to
the data retrieved from the site (Drewett 1999, p10).
Processual archaeology or New Archaeology came about in the 1960’s; the USA led the
way in this new theory which said hypotheses could be proved or disproved (Drewett
1999 p11). This is called hypotheses testing, the principal to which processual
archaeology theory adheres to (Wallace 2005, p4). In 1972 Binford, one of the pioneers
of New Archaeology gave a radio interview in which he said, ‘The New Archaeology
gives explicit recognition to the relationship between procedure or method and the kinds
of questions we seek to get answers to. It also says that we must give priority to the
testing of these general propositions in order to be able to make accurate statements
about the past’ (Gamble 2004, p26).
Postprocessual archaeology came about in the 1980’s and 1990’s by people such as Ian
Hodder who argues that there is not a correct way to undertake archaeological inference.
Some theories of the Postprocessual archaeologist can be taken to the extreme and they
border between archaeological research and fiction. Furthermore Renfrew and Bahn
describe some of these theories as heavy going and recommend people to turn to more
20
Candidate No 46880
specialized books (Renfrew & Barn 2000, p42-43). Drewett states that the fundamental
change between processual and Postprocessual archaeology was the fact the
Postprocessual archaeologist felt that there hands were tied with the processual
framework, and it did not allow for acts of individuals or take into account the wider
landscape (Drewett 1999, p10). A major criticism of Postprocessual archaeology is that it
is mainly conjectural. One report that is used often and for good reason is the first season
work at Leskernick, Bodmin Moor; extracts from the archaeologist dairies were written
up to tell the reader how the archaeologist felt when walking around and being inside the
houses, apparently this should give us a perspective on how the peoples of the past felt.
They showed a photo of an open picture frame being held up to where the window would
have been to show us what the view would have been. (Bender et el 1997, p147-177)
(Wallace 2005, p5).
It must be said that these three theoretical camps do overlap in places; this is certainly the
case with this project. Although ‘processual’ theory seems the most closely applicable:
we have our ‘theory’ (the presence of a Roman road) and we are testing this theory
through the collection and accumulation of data through archaeological work. However,
much of the background research and previous works were typically antiquarian or
cultural historical in style and the influence this material has had on the project cannot be
denied. Furthermore, the post-processual focus on the ‘individual’ their actions, the
landscape context and the ‘visualisation’ and experience approaches is certainly evident
in this project – although not quite to the extent of picture frames. It is surely impossible
to say why they built the road where they did for definite because we are so influenced by
21
Candidate No 46880
our modern mindsets. We have no way of knowing what the Roman mindset was
irrespective of how many theories you attach to it; we can speculate but that can be quite
a slippery slope. However, while there are clearly certain theoretical approaches less
respected than others, there is no single characterised theory considered on its own. If you
are tied down to one set of theories and refuse to budge you would probably be classed as
an extremist.
It is easy to see theory as completely separate from practical methodology, but this is not
the case. As Drewett states, ‘A crew member or volunteer picking up potsherds in a
ploughed field, or carefully cleaning a layer of soil off a wall foundation may not always
be thinking of the theoretical basis of what is being done, but nevertheless the theory is
present in the practice.’ (Drewett 1999, p11). Discussing the theory behind every single
action taken during the course of this project would take some time, but a look at the
main methods is useful.
Test pitting or trial trenching are intrusive methods, but there are times when only
intrusive methods will answer the questions being asked. Gamble states that there has
been a move away from excavations over the last 30 years and that this is due to non
destructive survey such as aerial photography and geophysical survey. This to a certain
extent is true (Gamble 2004, p50), but where results from fieldwalking, for example,
indicate that some type of activity has been going on and also suggest a general time
period it usually cant clarify anything further. Finds might date from the Roman period
through to the Post Medieval and the geophysical survey might be inconclusive. This was
22
Candidate No 46880
the case at Bishopstone, East Sussex; in 2001 a geophysical survey was carried out on the
village green, but the results where inconclusive. The following year test pitting was
carried out in the same area, and parts of a Saxon settlement were uncovered. The
following three years saw a full excavation of the village green where a large Saxon
community was uncovered including a cemetery with some 28 inhumations (pers comm.
G Thomas site director).Without the ensuing intrusive excavations the nature and extent
of the settlement would never have been revealed. Another example is the geophysical
survey that was carried out in Culvermead in 2005 (See Figure 9). What we originally
thought was a Roman road doglegging an obstacle of some sort turned out to be a 19th
road for quarrying river gravels (this will be discussed later).
23
Candidate No 46880
Figure 9: Resistivity survey results from Culvermead 2005.
Therefore even with the costs of excavations forever increasing, sometimes it is the only
method to use to be certain as we can of our results.
These methods have played a major role in discovering parts of the Roman road in
question. Barker states that to excavate holes, irrespective of how well they are recorded,
24
Candidate No 46880
is ‘in an ancient site… like cutting pieces out of a hitherto unexamined manuscript,
transcribing the fragments, and then destroying them, a practice which would reduce
historians to an uncomprehending stupor, but whose counterparts is accepted by the
majority of archaeologists as valid research’ (Barker 1993 p79). As previously
mentioned and from the above text excavations are destructive, and no one is arguing that
point but often they are the only means of understanding the archaeology. However,
authors like Gamble state that total excavation is rarely an option or indeed desirable as
the archaeological record is highly repetitive (Gamble 2004 p50). In some areas for
example the more formalized Roman buildings conform to a stereotype, therefore small
excavations on certain points could be extrapolated to give the plan of the whole building.
However, Gamble does warn that this kind of assumption can be dangerous, for example
we assume that there are no previous buildings below or above and no other anomalies
present (Barker 1993 p80). This point can easily be used as an argument for full
excavations, when the geophysical survey outlined a winged corridor Roman villa at
Barcombe, exponents of repetitive archaeological record would say we’ve excavated
hundreds of villa why another one – quite clearly the multi-phased development of the
site proved the need for the excavation!
Sampling theory in archaeology has been around for some time although a turning point
in many ways was advocated by Binford in 1964. He championed three changes ‘the
promotion of the region to the position of primary unit of archaeological research, the
explicit design of archaeological research programmes, and the explicit use of sampling
theory as a way of linking the two’ (Orton 2000 p5). The basic principal of sampling
25
Candidate No 46880
theory is that a small part can be inferred as the complete, for example if you have one
pot sherd, then it is the assumption that many sherds made up one complete pot, therefore
by dividing the sherds into fabrics, patterned, colour and shape, then we could say that
out of the 200 sherds we had 50 types of pot (Orton 2000, p14) (Wallace 2005, p3). There
are many forms of sampling, some can be very basic and other can take a very
complicated path. In this project a basic strategy is in play. The length of the road is
unknown, and the area that we have permission to work on is limited compared to the
total area the road could possibly cover. Therefore the excavations reflect a ‘sample’ of
the overall archaeology, determined by the restrictions of the project but also by the
indicated potential of specific sites. From these samples assumptions are made about the
bigger picture, specifically the alignment of the road, its extent and physical nature.
26
Candidate No 46880
CHAPTER 3
THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF ROMAN ROAD STUDIES
‘To recover a Roman road, therefore, to establish its exact alignment, even in detail, is
not one of those half-futile historic tasks, whose achievement ends in itself. The re-search
has indeed its “sporting” side. It presents all the fascination that attaches to any form of
hunting, with that element added which comes from tracking of a trail in the open air’
(Belloc 1913, p16)
Hilaire Beloc
Hilaire Belloc, a considerably well known and prolific writer of the early 20th century,
dealt directly with the issue of Roman roads on a number of occasions. His most famous
work in this sphere, ‘The Path to Rome’ (1902) followed his personal trek from central
France to Rome. His discussion of roads in Britain is no less significant, with specific
works relating to the London to Chichester road known more widely as Stane Street.
He was born outside Paris in 1870. He moved to England with his parents in 1872. He
came a prolific writer in the early 20th century, he was a member of parliament, but
became disillusioned with the political life, his books where political and historical for
example Servile State (1912) and the History of England (1915), he also wrote poetry
(Web 11) As like many of his contemporises his historical books can be viewed as being
written in a romanticist style, this can be seen in the opening quote above. Also the matter
of fact approach where the road can be clearly seen under our modern surfaces
27
Candidate No 46880
Belloc informs us of the line of the Roman road, using visual sight as his research. He
does not appear to have carried out any archaeological excavations, although he does
state that in 1829 when digging the foundations for an abutment for Pullborough bridge,
the end of a Roman causeway, metalled with gravel was discovered (Belloc 1913, p243).
Morris
Morris, who describes himself as a ‘road-tracer’ worked largely from looking at old maps
and Parish boundary lines, long hedge rows or long tree lines. He states that by looking at
maps and adding Roman towns and villages to them, one can surmise that there should be
a road joining them (Morris, p21.33.) His road-tracers guide unfortunately has no date of
writing and is not published. He quotes Margary however, which suggests that it dates to
the 1940’s or 1950’s. It could easily be viewed as his romantic of view of wandering
around the countryside discovering Roman roads; the reading makes it sound so matter of
fact. It possible that he was ahead of his time who said that Postprocessual Archaeology
started in the 1980’s-1990’s: ‘Often the road-tracer will be obliged to try to put himself in
the position of these surveyors, to think as they did, to imagine the problems they faced-or
some of them, for a while he has only to find the route followed, they had in addition all
the difficulties of clearing a trail through the forest, excavating and transporting the
material for the road and possibly that of unwilling and unsatisfactory labour. No doubt
they had effective means of dealing with strikes!’ (Morris, p5).
28
Candidate No 46880
Berry
Another author who wrote in this overly romantic style was Bernard Berry. When tracing
a Roman road, his preparation was a study of all the maps, before attempting to “…get
the ‘feel’ of this road…” by walking along the known sections of it. His diary continues:
‘As I passed the faint remains of a tumulus on the crest of the ridge I wondered whether
this might have marked an earlier track. Then having crossed the prehistoric OX Drove, I
saw several traces of the Roman road as I plunged into Donhead Hollow. Dropping
down through the two adjacent woods known as Elliot’s Shed and Picket’s Close I saw
the camber quite plainly, about twenty feet across, covered with the old gold of long
fallen chestnut leaves and the startling green of dog’s mercury, springing up afresh’
(Berry 1963, p14-15). It could be suggested that this ‘romantic style’ is due to the time
period in which this type of research was carried out. Today we would expect a more
methodical research and the ‘testing of theories’, for example, the camber that he
mentions would require some type of archaeological practice. This could be either
intrusive or non-intrusive, a geophysical survey could be carried out, to see what is under
the surface, the agger, the ditches, if permission is granted then a slot through the road,
auguring could give the different layers without to much destruction. There is no doubt
that the Roman road Berry was seeking is there, but in today’s climate you require facts
to back up your findings.
29
Candidate No 46880
Margary
As previously mentioned Margary traced many Roman roads in Britain and his papers
take on a more modern archaeological approach, especially compared to the likes of
Morris and Berry. It is probable that the latter have taken some of Margary’s methods
(the non archaeological ones) and used them for the basis of road-tracing, without
Margary’s follow up investigation. In Margary’s paper for The Royal Archaeological
Institute ‘Roman Roads in Britain, Their Investigation and Literature’, he states that the
initial preparation is looking at local archaeological literature, sites, artefact finds spots,
burials, and previously known Roman roads in the area of your investigation. He then
continues to discuss local historic references, old maps and place names. He gives
warnings about local traditions, stating that ‘the old Roman road’ means no more locally
than ‘ancient lane’ (Margary 1964, p93). The important fact about Margary’s work is that
on some of the roads he traced he carried out archaeological evaluations to prove the
existence of the roads he was looking for. Although it is worth stating that Margary did
not carry out excavations on all his predictions of the road alignments (Rudling 2003,
p114). Some of his assumptions were due to the lack of evidence of the road material, for
example when discussing the London to Lewes road, he states that past the crossing at
Barcombe Mills the River meanders and that at this time (1930’s) no modern engineer
would cross the river at this point therefore the Romans would not have crossed the river
at this point either but would have gone round with the flow of the river. Although there
is no archaeological evidence for this he continues to state that the edge of the river has
30
Candidate No 46880
changed and washed the evidence away and he even gives us a rate of erosion since the
Roman period which was 33ft per Century (Margary 1933, p28). It is absolutely not the
authors intention to scorn or discredit Margary’s work, it has been done to make the
point that times and our methods, and the way we interpret our work today has changed.
Our current knowledge of the Roman road system is overwhelmingly due to Margary’s
work, but even with his increased application of archaeological investigation the level to
which he attempted to prove his suppositions through archaeological methods was
minimal compared with modern standards.
Davies 2003
Davis discusses the long tradition in tracing Roman roads, looking for raised agger across
a field, looking at old maps, parish boundaries and tree lines, and the use of aerial and
satellite imagery (as discussed above) (see Figure 10). He continues however to state the
problems in using indirect evidence, and recalls a project run by the Berkshire Field
Research Group (hereafter BFRG). They used most of the methods that have been
discussed in this thesis, such as fieldwalking, aerial photography research, and
geophysical survey, in attempting to trace a Roman road running North–West from
Silchester through Burghfield. The results of this non-intrusive survey appeared to
support their initial thesis, but when they carried out excavations no trace of a road was
found, the majority of finds were of medieval date. He continues to state that any Roman
road which has been identified by observation and not excavation should be treated with
caution. Even when excavations do take place we should not throw caution to the wind
31
Candidate No 46880
without datable evidence (Davis 2002 p25-27). Davies is an excellent source when
clarifying the changing approaches to Roman roads in archaeology, highlighting the
greater level of investigation undertaken and the increasing demand for evidence to back
up theory.
Figure 10: Crop marks showing the Roman road from Bath to Silchester
(Davies 2002, p25).
Contemporary Sources
Contemporary sources have been used in this thesis, the likes of the Architect Vitruvius,
the censors Bubulcus and M. Valerius Maximus, the Poet Statius, the Emperor Trajan
and the Governor Pliny and the surveyor Siculus Floccus. The translations used are parts
of other author’s works on this subject and have been referenced accordingly.
32
Candidate No 46880
CHAPTER 4
ROMAN ROADS
Introduction
The Romans first encounter with Britain was in 55 BC when Julius Caesar expedition
landed in Britain, although his visit was restricted to Kent. It was in 43 AD that Claudius’
forces invaded Britain, and the occupation of the island began (Wacher 1998, p1.18).
Roman roads in Britain total approximately 10,000 miles and of that 7,500 are known
leaving roughly 2,500 miles waiting to be proved, or not as the case may be. These are
the roads shown as either probable or possible on modern maps). There is also a distinct
possibility that this figure could be far greater (Vincent 2000, p4-5).
Figure 11: The principle roads of Roman Britain (De La Bèdoyére 2006, p92).
33
Candidate No 46880
The Origins of Roads
It is virtually impossible to state when the first human made roads where built. We can
presume that the earliest types of roads were track ways created by animals heading for
grazing areas and watering holes, and tracked by huntergathers. Even today at Culver
Farm one can follow deer through the grassed land to the woods and streams. Over the
years the tracks become quite trodden down and distinctive and as such are quite easy to
follow. Chevallier supports this proposition: “The earliest roads were the work of the
elements and wild beasts, mere huntsmen’s trails” (Chevallier 1976, p11). Chevallier
suggests that accounts of human movements in history coincide with the onset of
settlements and domesticated farming, the development of trade, and the ensuing
domestication of Ox and horses for carts and chariots. As this kind of activity increased it
became a necessity to move these vehicles without damaging them on the rough terrain
(Chevallier 1976, p11-12), and thus the construction of man-made roads and tracks
begins.
Roman Roads: Origins and Development in Britain
Keppie quotes the popular saying that ‘All Roads lead to Rome’ but suggests that the
correct line should be ‘all roads led from Rome’: from Rome to the Italian towns, out to
the provinces and to the furthest outreaches of the Roman Empire, and Britain was no
exception.
34
Candidate No 46880
Margary states that that there was unquestionably a network of Celtic roads and track
ways already established in Britain. The Romans, therefore, only had to build highways
or main roads to connect to these ways, in the South Downs this is certainly the case
(Margary 1933, p31). Collingwood and Richmond however, argue that the route a Roman
road took was ‘…dictated by requirements of strategy and has no relation to earlier
tracks than a modern motorway to a previous country lane.’ (Collingwood, Richmond
1969, p4). In Scotland the road network was established due mainly to the topographical
requirements (Keppie 2004, p39).
Iron Age track ways developed along ridges of hillside ranges across Britain, for example
Pilgrims Way which runs along the North Downs, or the Jurassic Way which runs from
the Cotswolds and through Northamptonshire up to Lincolnshire (Frere 1999, p3). There
is also the famous, and possibly one of the most important, ancient track way known as
the Icknield Way in East Anglia (Margary 1973 p262-263) The issue over the placing of
roads, whether they reflect earlier routes or brand new ones established due to desirable
conditions, is a lengthy and ongoing debate. Evidence exists to support both positions.
According to Russell, in order for the Romans to maintain peace and keep control of the
economic welfare of the iron mining and agricultural areas in Sussex and the Southeast,
an infrastructure of roads and communications had to be set up. Ports, harbours and trade
centres would have been improved or updated and this process required suitable transport
routes (Russell 2006, p149).
35
Candidate No 46880
Ferret states that if the geology of the time period is studied, it shows that Southern
England was heavily afforested which made communication difficult. The belts of fertile
soils and clays were isolated and it was the Roman roads that made all the natural
resources available nationwide, one integrated road network, mainly radiating from
London (Frere 1973, p3). London in AD60 did not have the title ‘colonia’ (‘Colonia’ has
two meanings in the Roman world originally a Roman outpost established in conquered
territory to secure it. Eventually, however, the term came to denote the highest status of a
Roman city) (Web 1). Even though it was an important centre for businessmen and trade
Potter describes London as being “Destined to become the hub of the island road
network” (Potter 1983, p31). The original capital was Colchester but it is believed that
London’s geographical location based on the Thames had more benefits than that that of
Colchester on the Colne. The road network that developed around London sealed it as the
new capital, and eventually the governor of the province moved his headquarters to
London (Scullard 1979, p55).
The Roman military played a major role in establishing and developing the road network
in Britain. They led the way with roads like Stane Street, parts of which have survived for
example on the South Downs close to Bignor Hill (See Figure 12). It can also be seen
through Nore Wood, where it measures when including the ditches either side 26 metres
in width (See Figure 12) (Russell 2006, p149-151). The military involvement is discussed
in more detail below, but it is important to note that many roads originated through the
army’s need for establishing useable and direct means of travel and communication.
36
Candidate No 46880
Figure 12: Section and aerial views of Stane Street. Top: South Downs close to Bignor
Hill. Bottom: Nore Wood (Russell 2006, p149-151).
Classification and Types of Road
There are three distinct categories of road: military, commercial and public/smaller scale.
The military roads were built and maintained by the army, and used solely by them and
officials or government. Commercial roads were linked directly to agriculture and
industry. The third classification is used to define all other roads and includes public
highways and track ways which were generally a feature of increasing social stability.
37
Candidate No 46880
The road types did merge into one another, notably as the military necessity died out and
roads could be utilised for public purposes. A fourth type of road, not included in the
three main categories, can be summarised as ‘private’ and were features of private
property or villa estates.
Usually the first of these types to get built were the military roads, enabling the army to
ensure fast responses. Some of these roads were the equivalent of our motorways today.
J. Kenny, senior County Archaeologist at Chichester, speculates that the direct line
between Chichester Harbour and Pullborough may originally have been a military road
and was part of the maritime strategy. This part of the road measures 30 metres in width
and has a metalled surface; it has been identified at Westhampnett and the Gumber
through archaeological excavation. This is part of Stane Street which links London to
Chichester (Pers comms J. Kenny 10/04/2007).
The second types of roads were for commercial use, for example iron mining, and
agricultural farming. Rudling states that the building of the road system had a large
impact, especially in the rural communities, as land was confiscated and field systems
divided, although on the other side of the coin there was an increase in trade and
communication (Rudling 2003 p114). The London-Lewes and London-Brighton roads
appear to be void of any major settlements, and it can therefore be assumed that these
were potentially commercial routes linking the iron working sites and agricultural lands
with the provincial capital in London (Russell 2006, p154).
38
Candidate No 46880
The third and last types of roads appeared once stability had been established and
settlements started appearing. Furthermore, local tracks probably unmetalled also existed
in relation to these larger routes (Margary 1965, p16). These local roads were maintained,
the maintenance and labour were supplied by the local landowners in the areas where the
road intersected their land. Some of these roads that crossed private estates were not for
general public use, but for those who needed to reach the agricultural areas such as
workers. The local roads, it is presumed, make up the greatest part of the road network in
Britain. These roads would have linked all the great estates and provided access to the
more major routes (Chevallier 1976, p65-66).
The last category is private roads, these ran across the private estates and linked
agricultural fields. There was no public right of way, and they were maintained by the
landowner (Chevallier 1976, p65-66).
Generally this type of classification is correct; Chevallier provides greater detail on the
classification of roads and introduces the first century AD surveyor Siculus Floccus. The
latter’s contemporary classification of roads included ‘Public highways’ which he states
were built from public expense and military roads used by the military only. In addition
to the military roads, there were viae militares, which were roads of strategic importance
at a set point in time, but not necessarily built and paid for by the military. Once their
strategic importance had subsided these roads probably become public highways or local
roads. The local roads linked the public highways with each other and linked the villas,
farmsteads, and industrial areas.
39
Candidate No 46880
The Use and Economy of Roads
Roads and road systems were expensive to build and maintain, and the costs of using
roads very much like today were extensive and wide spread. Costs related to the use of
the road network included the purchase and maintenance of carts, the cost of Ox and
other animals to pull the carts and food for the animals to name but a few. Wacher
introduces calculations that suggest a half tonne load travelling 500km would double in
price by the time it reached its destination, due simply to the need of covering the
massive overheads accumulated during the course of its journey (Wacher 1979, p100).
There was also a system of taxation to pay for the upkeep of the road systems. The
imperial government relied on the city councils to appoint mangers of public posts and to
collect taxes and to repair the roads (Frere 1973, p213).
The materials for the construction of the roads would have been free, local resources
would have been used although if these where not locally available then the costs of
transporting them would have to be taken into account. The differing materials used in
road construction are discussed in more detail below.
The Romans also used the roads as a way of control, the first of the great military roads
was built by the Romans in 312BC, it linked Rome and Capua and was called the Appian
Way (Freeman 1996 p316). Surviving Roman sources on the names of Roman roads
suggest that where roads were state organised they were named after the builder. As
mentioned above, the Appian Way was built by the censor Appius Claudius (Chevallier
40
Candidate No 46880
1976, p17). A censor was a high ranking magistrate, his official position was called
censura and his responsibilities included overseeing the census which registered citizens
and their property, he was also responsible for control of public morals and was charged
with the administration of state finances which included public buildings and all new
public works including roads (Web 2). By naming the major routes after their official
builders, the presence and authority of the government was further established.
The Roman army was an expensive commodity, as mentioned above it was they who first
built the roads in Britain. When we talk of economics in the Roman period far more
aspects have to be taken into account. In modern times in Britain our army has
similarities to that of the Romans, the soldiers are provided with accommodation, meals,
and wages. When Antoninus Pius, Emperor between 138-161AD (Salway 1984, p192.
203), led his army into modern day Scotland he took 22,000-25,000 men. This army
required food and Hanson suggests that the most current estimates of rations for the
troops would be between 8-10 thousand tons of wheat and approximately 537 tons of
meat, with barley for the horses totalling approximately 8-9 thousand tons (Hanson 2007
p150). The initial cost and transportation of all this would have presented enormous
expense and difficulties, as with much of the military operations it relied heavily on an
established and successful means of transportation – the road network.
As previously mentioned, the first roads were for military use to enable the army to move
swiftly; however, once the regions had become stable the roads would be opened up for
trade and travellers, although permits to travel would have been required and some roads
41
Candidate No 46880
could still only be used by officials.. In South East Britain it can be assumed that the road
system was used for trade and travel far earlier in the Roman occupation than elsewhere
in Britain. The archaeological evidence for this assumption comes from the relative lack
of Roman fortification in the area. The map below (Figure 13) shows known military
sites in Britain c AD 58-70, now considering the amount of archaeological excavation
that has taken place in the South East and the amount of Roman archaeology found to
date, the lack of such sites in the South-East is startling to say the least. This is probably
explained by the fact that the South East was a pacified region, therefore the risks of
rebellion were minimal. Manley suggests that the South East could have been under
control of the Romans before AD43, therefore this would also explain the lack of Roman
fortification in the South East (Manley 2002, p143). Thus, while the initial road system in
the south east may well have originated from military activities, it seems likely that the
ensuing use and economy in the later period was of more public or commercial nature.
Figure 13: Map showing known military sites in Britain c58-70 AD (Todd 2004, p50).
42
Candidate No 46880
It should perhaps be noted here that when suggesting the roads were opened up for trade
and travel, it does not necessarily follow that the roads were accessed and used by
everyone. Permits to travel had to be issued for trade and private use, evidence for which
comes from Roman texts. One reason for controlling the road system was to allow the
cursus publicus (Imperial Post) to travel quickly to Rome. It is believed that the courier
carrying the Imperial Post could travel 50 miles a day, although in times of crisis far more
could be covered. Emperor Tiberius (AD14-37) (Web 3) covered 200 miles in a 24 hour
period (Salway 1993, p385). Other Roman sources give us an insight into the use of
roads, when Pliny (Governor of Bithynia) wrote to the Emperor Trajan (AD 98-117)
(Web 4) to enquire whether he could use an out of date permit, rather than hold up the
Imperial Post, Trajan’s reply was simple: “Permits must not be used after they are out of
date. It is my rule to have fresh permits sent to each province before the dates they can be
required” (Salway 1993, p385). In another correspondence from Pliny to Trajan Pliny
apologises for giving his wife a permit to travel to a funeral, Trajan replied excusing him.
Salway also states that even in Augustus’ reign (63BC-14AD) the official permits to
travel were subject to abuse (Salway 1993, p385).
It should be noted that the impact on the countryside after AD43 was considerable; before
the road system was in place, the general setup consisted of small communities and track
ways, it would have been rare to have traded goods from the ‘classical world’ or even to
meet these people. That all changed once the road system started to develop, with the
influx of thousands of soldiers and growing stability trade flowed and the countryside
43
Candidate No 46880
was opened up to the rest of Britain like it had never been before (De La Bèdoyére 1993,
p24).
Construction of Roads
Evidence for road construction relies mainly on archaeological evidence such as
excavations. Even with the Romans high regard for literary information there are few
sources on road construction. Roads are mentioned in texts such as ‘the censors Bubulcus
and M. Valerius Maximus builders of local roads (viae per agros) at state expense’
(Chevallier1976, p17). The architect Vitruvius, who is normally a valuable source on all
aspects of construction and design, is highly dubious. His account actually refers to floor
construction inside a building, or a pavement around a building but not that of a road
(Davis 2004, p55). Vitruvius only mentions roads in his ten books as a reference, for
example when he is describing a site for a new city: ‘When we are satisfied with the spot
fixed for the site of the city, as well as in respect of the goodness of the air as of the
abundant supply of provisions for the support of the population, the communications by
good roads, and river or sea navigation for the transport of merchandise, we should take
into consideration the method of constructing the walls and towers of the city. Their
foundations should be carried down to a solid bottom, if such can be found and should be
built thereon of such thickness as may be necessary for the proper support of that part of
the wall which stands above the natural level of the ground. They should be of the
soundest workmanship and materials, and of greater thickness than the walls above.
(Web 5 1.v.1) This example shows the level of detail that Vitruvius normally goes into. It
44
Candidate No 46880
can be presumed that the road was already there before the city was built, therefore
Vitruvius is not building the road so he does not see the point to describing its
construction.
A poem written by Statius in praise of the via Domitiana (Emperor Domitian AD 81-96)
(Web 9) which was a short cut along the Appian Way, reads ‘The first task here is to
trace furrows, ripping up the maze of paths and then excavate a deep trench in the
ground. The second comprises refilling the trench with other material to make a
foundation for the road build-up. The ground must not give way nor must bedrock or
base be at all unreliable when the paving stones are trodden. Next the road metalling is
held in place on both sides by kerbing and numerous wedges. How numerous the squads
working together! Some are cutting down woodland and clearing the higher ground,
others are using tools to smooth outcrops of rock and plane great beams. There are those
binding stones and consolidating the material with burnt lime and volcanic tufa. Others
again are working hard to dry up hollows that keep filling with water or are diverting the
smaller streams’ (Chevallier 1976, p83). It appears that this poem is discussing the
whole range of works which could be carried out when building a road, as opposed to a
witness account of road construction.
Road construction varies from road to road, in some instances they will change on the
same road. The following detail forms the current understanding of road construction, the
majority of which has been gathered from archaeological investigations.
45
Candidate No 46880
Before the road was constructed, Roman engineers surveyed its course on the ground.
The surveyor’s skill is evident when the construction of Roman roads is examined. Each
road was laid out in sections, the surveyors would have used instruments such as a groma
which was a cross-staff (see Figure 14), and a sighting device was also used called the
dioptra (Wacher 1980, p190).
Figure 14: Illustration of a groma (Web 11).
Materials used on the road depended on what raw materials were locally available. For
instance, the roads in the North Downs were made from flint and pebbles, in the Weald
iron slag is principally used, and on the South Downs flint is mainly used (Margary 1965,
p153).
There is no standard road construction although certain aspects would be the
same on most roads. Popular belief of a standard road says it would have two flanking
ditches either side (although this was not always the case), the material taken from the
46
Candidate No 46880
ditches would be placed in the space between. A depression would then be made in this
material, the width of which would be dependant on the width of the road. This material
forms what we call the agger (an agger can range from 1.8 metre to 30 metres in width
and up to 1.8 metres in height). In this shallow depression stones were placed to form the
foundation, and edging stones were used to hold the agger in place, in Sussex it is
predominately flint. Soils were then placed over these and compacted down, followed by
another layer of stones compacted into the soils. The gaps were then filled with smaller
stones including river pebbles if they were available locally; this is called a metalled
surface (Web 6).
Figure 15: Metalled surface on the via principalis at Usk, Gwent (Bagshawe 1979, p59).
Metalled surfaces (see Figure 14 above) can take many forms, for example in the iron
smelting areas of the Weald iron slag and cinder was used to metal the surfaces (Margary
1965, p18). Davis states that out of 213 Roman roads in a database (made up originally
from Margery’s Roman roads in Britain and using his numbering system, but added to as
47
Candidate No 46880
new discoveries are made), where the metalled surface has been recorded the average
depth is 510mm. More major roads like Watling Street have 810mm depth of metalling.
The metalling process plays a major role in the success of the road, in other words how
long it would last before requiring repairs.
Figure 16: Paved road at Vindolanda (Davis 2004, p60-61).
From the reign of the Emperor Augustus 63BC- 14AD (Web 7) paved roads started
appearing in Italy. It is assumed that the increase in the use of wheeled vehicles was
wearing the metalled surfaces away and paving the road increased it life span. In Britain
we see evidence of this in the vicus outside the West gate of Vindolanda, there is
evidence of a metalled surface under the paving slabs (see Figure16) (Davis 2004, p60-
48
Candidate No 46880
61) (vicus is an ad hoc civilian settlement that flourished near official Roman sites like
garrisons and forts) (Web 8). The archaeological record suggests that paving roads in
Britain was not normal, out of the 771 records on the database only 31 have references to
paved roads, which is only 4% (Davis 2004 p60).
Figure 17: Road construction (De La Bèdoyére 2006, p94).
Roman roads were constructed in layers, and were regularly repaired or resurfaced
through out the Roman period. New surfaces would be laid over the old ones, creating a
layered effect (see Figure 17) (De La Bèdoyére 2006, p94). Examples of possible repair
can be seen at Stamford on Ermine Street, where a pot-hoe has been repaired using
limestone which has been packed and tampered into the hole. Further evidence for
resurfacing can been seen at Harwood House on the Foss Way at the intersection of the
M40 motorway, the original surface were was gravel on sandstone blocks, then a cobbled
surface was laid on top sealing the earlier layer below (Web 11). On Ermine Street at
49
Candidate No 46880
Godmanchester 6 road layers were uncovered and datable pottery dates these different
road surfaces between the mid first and fourth centuries (Davies 2004, p106).
Conclusion
The road system throughout the Roman Empire was meticulously planned, well
engineered, and well maintained. It linked all the major centres, the rural agricultural and
industrial sites to the quickest and easiest routes (Margary 1965, p15). It was the life
blood of the Roman Empire, its armies could travel at speed to quash rebellion, its trading
posts flourished, goods travelled throughout the Roman Empire, and communications
were maintained to every outpost. This was all due to the road networks, without these it
is quite possible that Rome would never have developed into the great Empire that she
eventually became.
50
Candidate No 46880
CHAPTER 5
FIELDWORK
Introduction
The following chapters describe and discuss the various phases of archaeological work that
have been carried out in relation to the Roman road. The methods employed, and the results
or findings are presented in summary form field by field. The fields are initially dealt with
as individual sites and Chapter 6 discusses the accumulation of the work and the
conclusions that can be drawn from the project as a whole.
Location, Topography and Geology
The study sites are located around Culver Farm, situated at grid reference NGR TQ 424
143. Barcombe Roman Villa is situated at NGR TQ 418 143. There are a total of ten fields
that make up the surrounding landscape around the villa site; these are Church field, the
lower half of Dunstalls Field, Big Stack Field, Barn Field, North End field, Rose Cottage
field, Court House field, Pond field, Culvermead and Kings Field. Church field will be
excluded from this project as it has already been field walked and a geophysical survey has
been carried out. Furthermore, when the church had a car park built on the field a watching
brief and a small excavation was carried out by MSFAT. For the purpose of this work (the
specific study of the Roman road) the following areas will be examined, the lower half
Dunstalls field, Court House field, Pond field, Culvermead, Rose Cottage Field and
Northend Field (see Figure 18), other fields outside the area of investigation will be looked
at and mentioned when necessary.
51
Candidate No 46880
Figure 18: The study area showing the relevant fields and the locations of Culver Farm
and Barcombe Roman Villa. Based on the Ordnance Survey 1:10,000. © Crown copyright
Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.
The geology of the area is Weald clay and the soils above the Weald clay are stagnogleys,
these are a homogenous group which are the most extensive soils in the surrounding area.
They are classified as heavy and poorly drained and have developed over the Weald clays
52
Candidate No 46880
over millions of years. They are waterlogged throughout the winter and early spring
(Williams 1999, p2-3) (Robinson 1999 p4-5). Field drains are extensively used by the
farmers in all of the fields at Culver Farm to alleviate the water-logging problem (Pers
Comm. H.Stroude 26/07/2007) (Wallace 2006, p2).
Much of the surrounding area we can see to day is dominated by chalk downs and the
valleys that have been cut by rivers and the dry valleys that have been cut by perma frost of
the glacial periods, these date to 70-75 million years ago (Williams 1999,p2).
The Archaeology at Barcombe Roman Villa
The sequence of events found at Barcombe Roman villa is amazing, not unique but
amazing all the same. The oldest artefacts found on site were a Palaeolithic Acheulian
pointed hand axe c500,000-100,000 BC and a Mesolithic tranchet adze. A Bronze Age ring
ditch was discovered with a possible burial mound which is still under investigation (Pers
comm. C. Butler 23/08/2007). Two examples of Iron Age roundhouses were exposed and
appear to be contemporary with a First Century rectangular Villa, possibly reflecting the
Romano-British changeover period. The archaeology has thus allowed a part of the history
of Barcombe to pushed right back to the Palaeolithic period. The round houses and
rectangular villa with its bath house were then pulled down, an impressive winged corridor
villa rose in their place, with a larger bath house built in the opposing field. By this period
the villa has a farm complex as part of its estate, with possible barns and out-buildings, one
of which exposed a surviving patch of simple tessellated flooring. Saxon pits are dotted all
53
Candidate No 46880
over the site (Gammon et el 2006, p2), reflecting the later development and occupation of
the area.
These wall lines and foundations will not survive forever; they are being ploughed away,
although thankfully not at the rate they would have been when sub soil ploughing was in
use. The villa project, therefore, has been of great importance in producing a record of
these remains and with the addition of the landscape project and the specific investigation
of the Roman road, the overall picture of this historic area is still expanding.
Aerial Photography and Satellites: Pre-Excavation Research
On visiting the NMR aerial photography department at Swindon which is run by English
Heritage, some 249 aerial photographs covering Offham to Isfield were viewed. This was
undertaken with the hope of identifying the possible route of the Roman road. It became
very clear exactly why it is a previously unknown Roman road – there was no evidence for
the route of the road through any of the fields. Certain anomalies were identified which
might require further investigation, but as they bore no direct relationship to the road no
further work has been undertaken to date, they are probably post Roman and could be
something to do with the farming.
The satellite image of Court House field when first viewed showed a large rectangular
feature can be seen, and the long line of the SW edge appears to line up with an existing
hedge line in the next field. The parallel NE edge also heads to the same field where trees
54
Candidate No 46880
have now grown but no hedge line is visible. At the SW end a line runs across the field and
in the SE corner there appears to be a square structure on the outside of the main rectangle.
Comparing this image to the 1947 (see Figure 19) or 1960’s photo, the field boundaries do
not line up the same; it is quite possible that this is an older field boundary system.
Nothing was visible on the land pre-1960 from the photograph archive, nor was anything of
interest highlighted by post-1960 satellite images from Google Earth. Furthermore, satellite
images were viewed from 'Microsoft Virtual Earth' website (Web 10), but these like the
aerial photographs showed no sign of the road, although there were some interesting soil
marks. Drewett states that the aerial interpretation should be done by someone who has
knowledge and experience in this field (Drewett 1999 p42), had anything of interest been
observed in the work, further consultation with an expert would have sought.
Figures 19: Aerial photos from the 1947 and 1960’s © NMR English Heritage.
55
Candidate No 46880
COURT HOUSE FIELD
In the summer of 2005 the owner of Culver Farm, Mr Mark Stroude, alerted us to the
presence of several major flint scatterings across Court House Field, running on northeast
to southwest axis. The possibility that these flint scatterings represented the ploughed
remains of Roman road was then discussed. It was on this initial observation and
hypothesis that the following 2 years of archaeological investigation were based.
The work carried out in Court House Field represents the very beginnings of the road
project, the results allowed us to locate other sites of potential interest in the surrounding
area and target the research questions and methods more appropriately. This site is located
on Culver Farm at TQ 42151433. The height of the field varies and the area we are
investigated ranges from 9.86 and 10.65m OD. This field is also used for arable purposes
and it is ploughed annually.
Methods Used
Method
Fieldwalking
Used
Initial walk over, no
systematic approach.
Seven 20m grids surveyed
Resistivity Survey
Test-pitting/trial trenching 9 x 1m trial trench across the
flint scatters.
Open Excavation
Post-excavation work
Summary
Observation of flint scatters
on a NE – SW axis.
Inconclusive results
Exposure of road surface and
substructure, but no dateable
finds recovered.
Not undertaken.
The area was unsuited to
larger excavations due to the
sweetcorn crop.
Projected alignment and brief As no finds were recovered
report.
there was little postexcavation work to be
undertaken.
56
Candidate No 46880
Summary and Discussion
After several onsite meetings in the Court House field with Chris Butler, Rhw Mitcheson,
and Rosie Cummings the decision was made to put an evaluation trench across one of the
flint scatters. This was easier said than done, since the field had a harvest of sweetcorn
growing in it. To our good fortune there was a row of sweetcorn that had not grown and
was within a flint scattered area, allowing the excavations to go ahead without damaging
any crop.
It was decided that we would carry out a small geophysical survey using a Geoscan RM15
resistivity meter, prior to excavation. Four 20 metre grids were set out in a T-shape over the
flint scatter. Having a crop of sweetcorn in the field, was problematic to say the least, the
cable was forever getting caught up! The results of the resistivity survey were inconclusive
when viewed on the laptop, so we decided to add a further three 20 metre grids to the
survey area. These too were inconclusive and showed no obvious features in either high or
low resistance. Unfortunately we no longer have the results of either survey as the laptop
and dongle (the device that is required to run Geoplot) went back to UCL, and when the
author eventually made it back to London, the files had been deleted.
As the geophysical results had provided little further information the trench was marked
out along the row of sweetcorn which had not grown (see Figure 21). A major problem
was the fact that the rest of the field contained ‘growing’ sweetcorn so the space was
57
Candidate No 46880
limited and there was no access to mechanical machinery (the farm has its own wheeled
JCB, which our trench could have been excavated with). Consequently, the trench was
excavated by hand using mattocks, and shovels. The site was supervised by Rhw
Mitcheson, a third-year archaeology student from UCL, and excavated by student and
public volunteers.
Figure 20: Marked out trench in Courthouse Field.
The excavation trench measured 9 metres in length by 1 metre in width and orientated
approximately northwest to southeast. The trench was excavated stratigraphically by
context with the initial removal of topsoil and subsoil until archaeological features were
exposed.
58
Candidate No 46880
The first suggestion that archaeological remains were present was when small rounded flint
pebbles appeared during towelling in the SW corner of the trench within the subsoil. On
further investigation and cleaning back of the area a cut was exposed in plan running from
the SW to SE corner of the trench and beyond the bulks in both directions. This feature was
half sectioned, and proved to be a modern plastic 1970’s field drain (Pers comm. H.
Stroude 23/08/2007). Further to the NW and NE of the trench loose flints appeared in the
top soil and sub soil. At about 500mm depth below the current field surface, a
concentration of in-situ flints were uncovered, and further to the centre of the trench
another stretch of compacted flints were likewise exposed. After cleaning the area it was
clear that we had exposed an area of flint metalling (see Figure 21).
The flints appeared to be part of Roman road construction but unfortunately no datable
finds had been recovered. The road surface continued under the NW and NE end of the
trench under the sweetcorn, therefore it was not possible to ascertain the width of the road
or indeed its date as no archaeological artefacts of any date had been retrieved. The
metalled surface was then excavated and a clay agger could be seen in section. A further
200mm depth below this point exposed a flint foundation level.
59
Candidate No 46880
Figure 21: Flint scatters in Court House Field.
The work undertaken in Court House Field successfully established the presence of a road.
The absence of dateable material was unfortunate, and consequently labelling the features
‘Roman’ remained conjecture. However, the results allowed us to project a possible line for
the road and thus target further work at areas most likely to expose the continuation – and
hopefully produce direct evidence for its date.
Unfortunately a disaster was to hit this excavation, when back in London moving
properties, the drawings, plans and sections for this excavations went missing and to date
have never reappeared, the responsibility for this loss has to be laid at the feet of the author.
We do however still have the photographic records for this excavation.
60
Candidate No 46880
POND FIELD
In the latter part of 2005 a new phase of archaeological investigations began with the
possible Roman road still in mind and permission to excavate two evaluation trenches by
Mark Stroude. The decision was made to open up these two trenches in Pond field, which is
adjacent to Court House field. With help from MSFAT volunteers and Bob Durrant a farm
employee who agreed to drive the farm’s JCB for us the trial trenches were opened and
excavated.
Figure 22: Location of evaluation trenches in Pond Field, not to scale.
Ordnance Survey 1:10,000. © Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved. Inset photo
showing excavation of the road in the 2007 Pond Field season.
Methods Used
Method
Fieldwalking
Used
Yes
Resistivity Survey
Yes
Summary
Undertaken by MSFAT
volunteers prior to
excavations.
Undertaken by MSFAT
volunteers prior to
excavations.
61
Candidate No 46880
Test-pitting/trial trenching Two evaluation trenches located Parts of the road
at strategic points, covering
substructure, possible
approximately 59.2m2
boundary ditch and
associated post holes.
420m2 open area stripped by
Large section of metalled
Open Excavation
machine before hand excavation road surface, including
of features.
full width. Flanking ditch,
post-holes and various
associated roman features
including pits and isolated
burnt areas.
Finds analysis from fieldwalking 12 types of RomanoPost-excavation work
and excavations to be
British
undertaken. Report produced on
evaluation trench finds.
Summary and Discussion
‘Health & Safety’ issues regarding the use of mechanical diggers on site state that the
amount of people on site should be kept to a minimum, when other staff were on site they
were kept well away from the machine area (Drewett 1999, p86). For all the excavations on
this project one archaeologist has been used in conjunction with the JCB digger and driver,
hard hats and high visible vests have been worn.
The excavations commenced on 13th November 2005 and took place every weekend until
the 10th December 2005. The previous trench in Court House field was relocated and
ranging poles were placed in the corners. This was done in an attempt to establish a
projected line of the possible road. The first trench was sited at the SE side of the field and
measured 16 metres in length and 1.6 metres in width. The top soil was removed by the
JCB while being monitored by an archaeologist for archaeological evidence. Spits were
then taken off by hand; some loose flints and some pieces of CBM and pottery were
62
Candidate No 46880
recovered, but generally the trench was quite sterile of finds and features. Definitely no
sign of a road! However, at approximately 800mm depth the traces of a cut of a ditch
appeared; the question was the posed whether this ditch was the flanking feature along the
side of the Roman road. If so had we sited the trench too far to the northeast?
Meanwhile, trench two was sited at the top end of the northeast side of the field. Both
trenches were now under excavation simultaneously. The feature in trench one was now
under excavation, although once again like the trench in Court House field it appeared to be
sterile of any finds. However, at the very bottom of the ditch a single piece of pottery was
recovered, which was dating to the Bronze Age. One interpretation put forward by Chris
Butler was that it could have been a Bronze Age field boundary (Pers comm. C. Butler
20/11/05).
For trench two the top soil was removed and then the sub soil was removed in spits, by the
JCB, with an archaeologist watching at all times. Far more CBM, pottery and flints were
being recovered, at approximately a depth of 350mm a possible metalled surface was
uncovered. This area was cleaned backed to see what the extent was of the large quantity of
downland flints. As work progressed it became clear that the remains were definitely a man
made surface: linear edges, dateable finds, and at the West end of the trench we had what
appeared to be a possible post hole. Furthermore, at the East end of the trench we had the
cut of a possible ditch, and also what appeared to be another field drain.
63
Candidate No 46880
The final interpretation was that the downland flints were part of the foundation of the
metalled surface, and that the compacted metalled surface had been ploughed away, or had
been missed during the watching brief and excavated through by the JCB. The possible
post hole at the West end of the trench was confirmed as such and half sectioned (this is
where one half of the feature is removed) (Drewett 1999, p111). Dateable Roman pottery
was recovered from it during full excavation.
Figure 23: The first post-hole in Pond Field.
We also opened up a smaller extension trench in line with the edge of the road and the
other post hole heading South to see if it was a stand alone post hole, or if it was part of a
structure along the edge of the road. At 3.6 metres a second post hole was uncovered and
half sectioned (see Figure 24), recorded and then fully excavated. Again, datable Roman
pottery was found. The ditch at the East end of the trench was also excavated using the bulk
as the half section for recording purposes. 300mm of the possible field drain was excavated
64
Candidate No 46880
to prove this initial interpretation. The trenches were fully recorded and back filled. For a
full report on the finds from this excavation see Wallace2006.
Figure 24: The second post-hole in Pond Field
Originally this years excavation was due to start on Saturday 4th August 2007,
unfortunately due to the wet weather we experienced, the wheat (which was the crop in the
field) could not be combined and so the project a week later than planned. The excavation
site was again Pond Field, although this time it was decided to open up a larger area. The
trench measured approximately 20m and 21m, with extra metre added to give a fuller
potential of finding post holes to the rear of the original ones found. Until this year, the
widest excavations undertaken were at approximately 1.6m, this open area exposed this
year allowed the full width of the road to be established, as well as associated features
either side. With the full width and partial length of the road established it was possible to
ascertain its overall orientation and thus determine its direction and location, and project it
to further sites.
65
Candidate No 46880
Figure 25: Map showing location of open excavations in Pond Field, not to scale.
Ordnance Survey 1:10,000. © Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved. Inset photo
showing excavation of the road in the 2007 Pond Field season.
The combining started on Thursday 9th August, and once completed we had to wait for the
bailing (a machine collects the straw and puts it into circular bails) (Pers comm. M. Stroude
10/08/2007). Once the bailing had been finished the team marked out the 20m X 21m
trench, and the farms JCB was used to start opening the site on Saturday 11th August, a full
week late. The top soil was stripped off and then spits where taken down through the sub
soil. Originally we opened up a 21mX10m trench and got the volunteer students, from
Newcastle University and from the Institute of Archaeology and a MSFAT volunteer to
start cleaning back. Large areas of the metalled surfaces were exposed and cleaned back,
and it soon became clear that an extensive part of the road surface had survived. Where it
remained intact it was possible to see how the flints had been placed flat side up and
compacted together (See Figure 26).
66
Candidate No 46880
Figure 26: Straw bails and cleaning of flint surface in Pond Field 2007.
67
Candidate No 46880
On the West side of the road we found the ditch, which is located on the slightly higher
ground. A large rectangular feature cutting the road and ditch for some 15m proved a rather
puzzling question for some time. As this cut was further exposed and cleaned back the
penny dropped: we had successfully located the 2005 evaluation trench! We had used a
handheld GPS machine to identify its location, it turned out to be inaccurate by over
3metres! (You learn by your mistakes, we have now triangulated this trench with fixed
points as well as GPS). In the end our confusion proved beneficial, by referring back to the
2005 drawings and using the cut of the trench as a fixed point, we located and exposed the
two post-holes excavated in 2005. This allowed us to align them and target possible areas
where other post holes could be.
It should be noted here that we were not just chasing the Roman archaeology; we excavated
the entire site for all archaeology of whatever date, and simply used the old post hole alerts
us to potential areas of interest.
On Monday 13th August the rains came down again, and we lost a further two days of
excavation. At this time we decided that we would carry out further geophysical surveys in
areas of interest in other fields, these results will be discussed later. On Wednesday we
carried on with the excavations, and cleaned back again as the rain had left a silt layer
across the site. On the West side of the road two ephemeral ditches were exposed running
North South, parallel with each other approximately 3.5 metres apart. The pottery found on
the surface was of possible Bronze Age date, although this is awaiting confirmation from
an expert.
68
Candidate No 46880
Four post holes were exposed and excavated on the East side of the road, two outside the
ditch and two appeared to be within in. This suggests that at some point the ditch was
backfilled, and at a later date post holes were cut into it. This work is ongoing, and we are
hoping to retrieve dating evidence to confirm this theory. Basically, we are hoping to
establish a terminus post quem for the fill of the post hole (it will not tell us when hole was
dug). If a datable object was recovered, then the fill could not be earlier than the date of the
object, although if we then found earlier dateable material in the ditch, we can say that the
earliest date of the post hole can not be earlier than that of the artefact in the ditch (Barker
1993, p224).
This years excavations are still ongoing, and although the work is progressing there is still
much to be done. In the last week a number of interesting features have been exposed, and
excavation is just beginning. In the north-east corner of the site are large area with
intercutting pits is being excavated in quadrants in the hope that established sections will
explain the number of features and their relationships. One particular area has produced
large quantities of pottery and CBM, all of which dates to the Roman period. Interestingly,
fine wares such as Samian are being recovered fairly frequently. The road itself is currently
being planned, creating a detailed record of the metalled surface. Once complete a section
will dug across the full width to exposed the underlying layers and hopefully establish the
construction methods and techniques, as well as the materials used. Two coins, as yet
unidentified but almost certainly Roman, have also been recovered, one from the road
surface and one from the plough soil removed during machining. These have been sent for
69
Candidate No 46880
x-rays and closer examination, and we are still awaiting the results. Hopefully, the site can
remain open for a further few weeks, and a small group of volunteers is being established
to complete the necessary work. A full report on this year’s excavations will produced at a
later date, once all the necessary field work and post-excavations analysis has been
completed.
CULVER MEAD
In August 2006, our investigation focused on Culvermead field. This field has been field
walked on two separate occasions, so rather than replicate we carried out a quick walk over
survey, to confirm the types of find which were found previously. There has been a full
report written regarding this excavation see Wallace 2006.
Methods Used
Method
Fieldwalking
Used
Two extensive projects
undertaken in previous years,
followed a brief walkover in
2006 prior to excavations.
Summary
Large quantities of Roman
ceramic building material
were retrieved, pottery,
flints and fire-cracked
flints.
48 grids of 20m x 20m across
Large areas of high
Resistivity Survey
Culver Mead field.
resistance, initially
thought to represent the
road.
Possible collapsed
Test-pitting/trial trenching Seven evaluation trenches
located across Culver Mead field, building, roman coin
totalling some 116.96m2.
dating to 98 – 118AD,
section of Roman road
overlaid by 19th century
quarry road, three 5ft
70
Candidate No 46880
Open Excavation
Post-excavation work
wooden timbers carbon
dated to 250 – 420AD
and 1st century Samian
Ware pottery.
Not undertaken to date.
Open excavation in Culver
Mead will be undertaken
at a future date.
Evaluation report produced (see Roman pottery wares
Wallace 2006) and pottery
identified include East
analysis by Malcolm Lyne.
Sussex Wares, Samian
Wares and Black
burnished wares. Medieval
and post-medieval pottery
also recovered. CBM,
glass, burnt clay and wood
were also recovered.
Summary and Discussion
While some very interesting and significant archaeology was encountered in Culver Mead,
the following discussion will concentrate on those areas relating directly to the Roman
road.
In 2005, with colleagues from the Institute of Archaeology a geophysical survey of
Culvermead was carried out (See Figure 27). The area covered was 48 20metre grids; as the
results show, the site looked very interesting. We had first thought that the high resistivity
(dark area on the plan) was the Roman road, and it doglegged for some reason or another.
Seven evaluation trenches were located in Culvermead based on the geophysical survey
results. There were two main objectives when excavating in Culvermead, the first was to
try and locate the Roman road, and the second was to see the extent of the archaeology in
71
Candidate No 46880
the field. Five of the seven trenches excavated had Roman archaeological evidence and two
were sterile of any archaeological finds.
Figure 27: Geophysics and trenches in Culver Mead, 2006.not to scale
Trench D was where we expected to find the Roman road. The top soil was removed using
the farm’s JCB, with an archaeologist to watch for archaeological evidence as the soils
were removed. Spits through the sub soil were then removed and we came upon what
appeared to be a metalled surface so the rest of the trench was excavated to this level. The
trench was then cleaned back by hand. The unusual aspect of this metalled surface was the
fact it was 15 meters wide. Although on visual inspection there appeared to be two possible
surfaces. In summary, there was a river gravel quarry in the bottom Eastern corner of the
field, and the river gravel metalled surface was a c 19th century road surface for extracting
72
Candidate No 46880
the river gravels. This had been built over the Roman road leaving approximately 4.5
meters exposed (Wallace 2006 p20-21).
Extensive future work is planned for Culver Mead; we are hoping to expose a similar area
of the metalled surface as that observed in the open area excavations in Pond Field. The
roman wood and other features are extremely interesting, and will definitely be readdressed
in the future.
DUNSTALLS FIELD
Barcombe Roman Villa is located roughly in the middle of Dunstalls Field, immediately
south of the public footpath. The projected alignment of the Roman road, based on the
fieldwork described above, indicated that it should continue to the south of the villa site,
running in a south-west direction. In an attempt to establish this further, a large geophysical
survey was undertaken targeted on this area of the field.
Methods Used
Method
Fieldwalking
Used
Brief walkover, no systematic
fieldwalking programme.
Resistivity Survey
21 x 20m grids surveyed
73
Summary
Some concentrated area of
flints were observed and
this was used to target the
resistivity survey
appropriately.
A large linear stretch of
high resistance was
exposed, and is considered
to represent the
Candidate No 46880
Test-pitting/trial trenching Future work
Future work
Open Excavation
Analysis of geophysics results
Post-excavation work
continuation of the Roman
road.
-
Summary and Discussion
21 grids were surveyed in using standard measuring tapes and triangulation, these were
placed so as to cover as much of the area where the suspected road continuation lay as
possible. The results, when viewed on Geoplot software, revealed a linear stretch of high
resistance measuring some 5m in width and well defined for some 35m in length. The high
resistance was orientated northeast to southwest, and appeared to line up nicely with the
suspected continued alignment of the road.
Extensive future work is planned for this area of Dunstalls Field. Where possible a similar
process of archaeological investigation as carried out in Pond Field and Culver Mead will
be employed. We intend to target the area highlighted by the geophysical survey with
excavations, to confirm the presence of the road and establish its nature and level of
survival. As mentioned above, this project is ongoing, and hopefully the work undertaken
in future seasons will include further investigation in Dunstalls Field.
74
Candidate No 46880
ROSE COTTAGE AND NORTHEND FIELDS
Rose Cottage field is located approximately 1.5km (0.95 miles) southwest of Culver Farm,
and forms part of the land attached to Cowlease Farm. Northend Field is located some
400m further northeast towards Culver Farm.
The work in these fields consisted of a brief walk-over survey to locate any archaeological
finds, notably flint scatters and CBM. In Rose Cottage Field a distinct spread of downland
flints was observed running in a northeast to southwest direction. Some small fragments of
CBM, initially identified as Roman were also recovered. Again, further work is needed to
confirm any speculations, but it is thought these areas of flint and CBM represent the
disturbed remains of the road through ploughing, and that consequently their location
indicates the presence of further in situ road below the surface.
GPS Survey
The results of the fieldwork discussed above are extremely interesting when viewed
independently. However, the intention of this project is to establish an overview of the
Roman road, its full alignment and extent. In attempt to bring all the results together and
view them within the context of the whole road, a GPS (Global Positioning System)
project was undertaken.
75
Candidate No 46880
Sara Newsome of English Heritage paid us a visit on the 7th August with the hope of
providing two grid points using the GPS system. Unfortunately, due to the wet weather
the wheat was still in the field and so we decided to put National Grid Reference points in
the in the headlands at the edge of the field. The machine used was a Trimble R8 surveygrade GPS system, the machine is accurate in the horizontal within 0.02 metres and the
vertical is within 0.05 metres to the OS National Grid (Pers comm. S. Newsome
22/08/07). These points would allow the site grid to be accurately set up on the same
alignment as the OS grid.
Sara returned 3 weeks into the 2007 excavations in Pond Field and used the same system
to plot the edges of the road and other features, including the edge of the trench using the
same machine. She took reference points on the ditch on the West side of the road and the
previously excavated post holes that were uncovered in 2005. Sara also plotted our
geophysical survey grid set out in the lower half of Dunstalls field whilst we where
waiting for the wheat to be combined. All the data was downloaded back at the office and
she used it to project the line of the road in both directions from our excavation trench
(See Figure 28).
It must be mentioned that we are making the assumption that the road runs straight.
Although with this information we could prove or disprove the presence of the road. The
first indications once this data was received looked pretty good, the geophysical survey grid
in the lower half of Dunstalls field which Sara had surveyed in, was partly on the projected
line of the Roman road, and the geophysical survey results show high resistivity on the
same alignment. Also interesting in Dunstalls field, is the ditch which runs from the top of
76
Candidate No 46880
the field down on the northwest. At the end of the modern field boundary the ditch and
hedgerow turn north westward, the geophysical results show the original line of the ditch
continuing down. The north westward turn of the ditch appears to respect the road, and runs
parallel with it; therefore it is possible that the stream within the ditch was moved back in
the Roman period, excavation could prove this conjecture. Furthermore a large amount of
downland flints can be seen on the surface of the field, similar to that of Court House field.
Figure 28: Map showing the projected line of the Roman Road. Based on the Ordnance
Survey 1 10,000. © Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved
77
Candidate No 46880
The information provided by the GPS project should allow us, in future projects, to
accurately target areas where the line of the road continues, possibly for example where it
meets the Greensand Way
78
Candidate No 46880
Possible
backfilled ditch
shown as high
resistance.
Possible road
surface shown
as high
resistance
Figure 29: Geophysics results from Dunstalls Field 2007
79
Candidate No 46880
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Conclusions
This project has raised certain question regarding how we trace Roman roads and,
more importantly how we prove them. Methods have changed since the days of
Margary, Morris and Berry, and especially with the latter twos approach. As
previously mentioned Margary’s work for its time was pioneering, and for the most
reliable, after all it was Margary suggested the logic in a route to the west of the River
Ouse and this project has confirmed it (although of course Margary never stated its
existence, but merely suggested an alternative route for the London-Lewes road had he
not established it in its currently accepted location). We still look at old field
boundaries, tree and hedge lines and old maps to give us a head start to where a
possible road may be. However, the main development is in the way we prove the
existence of these possible roads. We can use all three types of geophysical survey that
have already been mentioned, different methods of trial excavations, which could
include auguring, 1 X 1 test pits, or evaluations trenches. The importance now
attached to proving theories through excavation is a significant change in the
approaches to a study of Roman roads.
The aim of this project was to trace an unknown Roman road that was located in
Barcombe, to this extent the project has, through fieldwalking, geophysical survey,
80
Candidate No 46880
trail trenches and open excavation, proved without doubt that it existed. Datable
evidence (pottery) from the road places it from the early 1st century through to the late
4th century (Pers comm. M Lyne 14/04/06) (Wallace 2006, p5). The first excavations
gave us the idea of a Roman road, although unfortunately no datable evidence was
recovered. Our second phase of excavations missed the line of the road completely,
but we possibly uncovered a Bronze Age field boundary ditch. The third excavation
trench gave us the road foundations and more importantly dateable material, and two
post holes along the edge of the road, which has lead to the speculation of a possible
road side settlement. The excavations in Culvermead, showed us the c 19th century
activity that had been built over the Roman road, this date has been given as that is
what the documentary evidence appears to give us, on the 1842 tithe map of Barcombe
there is a pond in the Eastern corner of Culvermead a map of 1873 shows a gravel pit
in the Eastern corner, and the following map of 1899 just shows the field with no
mention of a gravel pit. Unfortunately there was no actual artefact evidence found at
all on the later surface, unlike the Roman surface, CBM and pottery where recovered
(Wallace 2006, p15-22).
The 2007 excavations have been very successful for the overall project; by opening up
a large area we have been able, thanks to English Heritage, to project the line of the
Roman road. This was not possible in previous excavations because our trenches were
only 1.6 meters wide. This projection is very important, as it will allow us to target
areas to prove that the road is there at that point. The open excavation has highlighted
possible Bronze Age ditches, and areas of burning which still require investigation. As
81
Candidate No 46880
normal certain archaeological features disappear under the bulk and await future
excavations or geophysical survey to identify their extent. We finally have a metalled
road surface, which shows flints laid flat side up and compacted together to create a
comparatively smooth surface, although some of it is quite badly damaged through
ploughing. We have the possible roadside settlement which will require many more
hours of investigation. The archaeology of the wider project is interesting and exciting,
as well as the Roman archaeology already discussed, through fieldwalking we have
uncovered a Mesolithic site in Big Stack field, which Chris Butler has agreed to
investigate, and other fields with in the remit of the overall project still require
investigation, and will be done in due course.
One of the most interesting facts to come out of this project is how widespread the
Roman archaeology is from the villa site, so many times in the past Roman villas have
been excavated but they are investigated in an isolated manner with little attention to
their place in the landscape or regard for other contemporary activity nearby. This
project has found a road which is directly related to the villa, so which came first?
There might have been tracks ways which have been built over, there was an Iron Age
settlement there before the road, the date of the road coincides with the villa and
interestingly enough the road appears to out live it. Without being phenomenological
about it, we can get an insight into the efforts that the Roman’s put in to surveying and
building these roads, and not just in Britain; the road network was unbelievable in size
across the whole of the Roman Empire (see Figure 30). Their skills and technologies
were unprecedented, and it is quite understandable how their Empire grew to what it
82
Candidate No 46880
was. We have a possible roadside settlement and possible industrial site; once these
have been fully investigated we might be able to say that the settlement also outlived
the villa. Archaeologists should be looking at the wider picture in all its ventures.
Research excavations are of course limited mainly due to funding, and the reluctance
of universities to undertake long term projects. Although all is not doom and gloom,
many fine research sites exist, and the author is sure many more will be found and
excavated. In 2008 MSFAT & University of Sussex will start excavating the bath
house in Church field which has be tantalising everyone involved at Barcombe for
some years now.
Figure 30: Road network of the Roman Empire (Web 12).
83
Candidate No 46880
The site will continue to suffer through ploughing, as with many archaeological sites
in farmland this process is a very real threat to the remains. However, a point should
be made in defence of the farmers who use ploughing on their land; archaeologists
have been known to say (it’s mentioned on Time Team quite often) that the
archaeology is being destroyed by ploughing, which sometimes infers that the farmers
are at fault. It is true that some ploughing does destroy the archaeology although not at
the rate one would think. When we look at the sites like Barcombe Roman villa, their
foundations are below the plough line, as is the metalled road surface, otherwise
considering the majority of these fields have been ploughed since the Medieval Period
we would not even have the foundation layers. A lot of the time it is the farmers
themselves who alert archaeologists to the finds being ploughed up in the fields. This
project is a prime example, aerial photography was widely examined yet no trace of
this Roman road was found, it was actually the farmer who altered us to the flint
scatter that was ploughed up, he knows his fields better than anybody, and when
anomalies turn up I guarantee you that it will be the farmers who notice them first.
Ultimately, and while acknowledging the quantity of work still to be done, this project
can be viewed as highly successful. A previously unknown Roman road has been
identified and its existence proved through detailed archaeological investigation.
Modern methods and technologies have been employed to project the continuation of
the road based on those areas already identified. With this information further sites can
be identified and archaeological work carried out to enhance our already well
established theory. Hopefully, with future work, the start and end points of the road
84
Candidate No 46880
will be identified. This should allow us to consider the roads purpose and destination,
why it was constructed and where it was going. The physical characteristics of the
road have been partially addressed through the work undertaken so far, but further
investigation will allow us to clarify the materials and methods more clearly. From this
we can make comparisons with other roads and hopefully make a significant addition
to the understanding of Roman roads that already exists. Overall, therefore, the road
project has been, and will continue to be, of both interest and significance to
archaeological and theoretical debate regarding Roman roads in Britain and
specifically to the understanding of Roman Sussex.
Future Work
As previously mentioned this work is part of an overall larger project, looking at the
archaeology around Barcombe Roman villa. There are fields that still require
fieldwalking and geophysical survey. Also this project still requires a great deal of
work to be carried out. The extent of the possible road side settlement still requires
confirmation and the starting point and final destination of this Roman road also
requires proving. The work carried out since 2005 has given us the possible locations
of both of these points and they will be investigated. The wheels are in motion to get a
Fluxgate gradiometer survey and a possible GPR survey, it is hoped that a GPR survey
will be carried out where the Roman road and the Greensand Way possibly meet, to
see if this point is in fact a T junction or a cross roads. The Fluxgate gradiometer
85
Candidate No 46880
survey will be carried out in Pond field and Court House field to try and locate the
possible extent of the road side settlement.
Once these results have been obtained, a decision on further excavations in these fields
will be made. In Culvermead, there is a possible industrial site, and remains of stone
foundations. Furthermore we had remains of waterlogged wood in trench B, there
where 3X5ft wooden timbers (see Figure 31) stacked on top of each other. This field
will undergo an open excavation at some point in the future (Wallace 2006, p18-22).
The possible road sections highlighted in Dunstalls, Rose Cottage and Northend field
will be investigated through excavation. Hopefully, through further walkovers and
surveys along the projected line of the road, more sites will be identified and
archaeological work undertaken where possible.
Figure 31: Wooden timbers from Culvermead.
86
Candidate No 46880
Bibliography
Bagshawe, R. W. 1979. Roman Roads: Shire Archaeology: Aylesbury Bucks.
Bahn, P. 2001 (Ed). The Penguin Archaeology Guide: Penguin Books: London.
Barker, P. 1993 (3rd Edition). Techniques of Archaeological Excavation: Routledge:
London.
Belloc, H. 1913. The Stane Street: A Monograph: Constable & Company Ltd: London.
Bender, B. Hamilton, S. Tilley, C. 1997. Leskernick: Stone Worlds; Alterative
Narratives; Nested Landscapes: Proceedings Of The Prehistoric Society 63, 1997,
P147-178.
Chevallier, R. 1976. Roman Roads: B.T.Batsford: London.
Collingwood, R. G. & Richmond, I. 1969. The Archaeology Of Roman Britain:
Methuen & Co Ltd: London.
Darvill, T. McWhirr A. 1984. Brick And Tile In Roman Britain: Models OF
Economics Organisation: World Archaeology V15 No 3. P239-261.
Davis, H. 2004. Roads In Roman Britain: Tempus Publishing Ltd: Gloucestershire.
De La Bèdoyére, G. 1993. English Heritage Book Of Roman Villas And The
Countryside: B.T.Batsford/English Heritage: London.
De La Bèdoyére, G. 2006. Roman Britain: A New History: Thames & Hudson:
London.
Drewett, P. L. 1999. Field Archaeology: An introduction: University College London
Press: London.
87
Candidate No 46880
Freeman, C. 1996. Egypt, Greece And Rome: Civilizations Of The Ancient
Mediterranean: Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Frere, S. 1973. Britannia: Book Club Associates: London.
Frere, S 1999.3rd Edition 1987. Britannia: A History of Roman Britain: The Folio
Society: London.
Gaffney, C. & Gater, J. 2003. Revealing The Buried Past: Geophysics For
Archaeologists: Tempus Publishing Ltd: Gloucestershire.
Gamble, C. 2004. Archaeology The Basics: Routledge: Oxon. Gammon, A., Rudling,
D. and Butler, C. 2006. Barcombe Roman Villa. King's Lynn: Heritage Marketing and
Publications.
Hanson, W. S. 2007: Scotland And The Northern Frontier: Second To Fourth
Centuries AD: In M. Todd (Ed) A Companion To Roman Britain: Blackwell
Publishing: Oxford. P136-161.
Keppie, L. 2004. The Legacy Of Rome: Scotland’s Roman Remains: John Donald
Publishers: Edinburgh.
Manley, J. 2002. AD43 The Roman Invasion Of Britain: A Reassessment: Tempus
Publishing Ltd: Gloucestershire.
Margary, I. D. 1933. A New Roman Road To The Coast. The Road From Maresfield to
Lewes: Sussex Archaeological Collection: Vol LXXIV: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd:
Cambridge. P16-43.
Margary, I. D. 1964. Roman Roads In Britain: Their Investigation And Literature:
(Reprinted from) The Archaeological Journal Volume CXIX: The Royal
Archaeological Institute: London.
88
Candidate No 46880
Margary, I. D. 1965. Roman Ways In The Weald: Phoenix House: London.
Morris, C. Unknown: Tracing A Roman Road: Unpublished: Sussex Archaeological
Society Library: Ref 937R (388.1).
Orton, C. Tyers, P. Vince, A. 1993. Pottery In Archaeology: Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
Orton, C. 2000. Sampling In Archaeology: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Potter, T. W. 1983. Roman Britain: British Museum Press: London.
Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. (Eds) (3rd Edition) 2000.Archaeology: Theories Methods And
Practice: Thames & Hudson Ltd: London.
Rudling, D.2003. Roman Rural Settlement In Sussex: Continuity And Change: In
David Rudling (Editor) The Archaeology Of Sussex To AD2000: Heritage: University
of Sussex. P111-126.
Robinson, D. 1999. Geology: In K. Leslie & B. Short (Eds) The Historical Atlas Of
Sussex Phillimore: West Sussex P2-3.
Russell, M. 2006. Roman Sussex: Tempus Publishing Ltd: Gloucestershire.
Salway, P. 1993. The Oxford Illustrated History Of Roman Britain: Oxford University
Press: Oxford.
Salway, P. 1984. Roman Britain: Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Scullard, H. H. 1979. Roman Britain: Outpost Of The Empire: Thames and Hudson:
London.
Vincent, A. 2000. Roman Roads Of Sussex: Middleton Press: West Sussex.
Wacher, J. 1979. The Coming Of Rome: Routledge & Kegan Paul: London and
Henley.
89
Candidate No 46880
Wacher, J. 1980. Roman Britain: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd: London.
Wacher, J. 1998. Roman Britain: Sutton Publishing: Gloucestershire.
Weeks, K. 1999. The Lost Tomb: Phoenix: London.
Wallace, R. 2005. Developments In Archaeological Theory Over The Last30 Years
Have Had Little Or No Impact On The Practice Of Field Archaeology In Britain.
Discuss Using Exams Obtained From Excavation Reports: Unpublished.
Wallace, R. 2006. Select A Published Excavation Report With Finds Report On At
Least Three Classes Of Artefact (Eg, Ceramics, Lithics, Metals). Prepare A Research
Plan For The Re-Analysis Of These Artefacts Considering Sampling Theory, Scientific
Analysis And Illustration: Unpublished.
Wallace, R. 2006. Select A Small Group OF Artefacts (Single Or Mixed Materials)
And Prepare An Illustrated Report On Them: Unpublished.
Wallace, R. 2006. Prepare A Publishable Report Based On Fieldwork, Excavation Or
Artefact Studies (Or Any Combination Of These .Unpublished.
Wallace, R. 2006.Prepare A Fully Illustrated Excavation Report Based On Your
Sample Excavation. Present With Associated Archive: Unpublished.
Williams, R. 1999. Geology: In K. Leslie & B. Short (Eds) The Historical Atlas Of
Sussex Phillimore: West Sussex P4-5.
Wilson, D. R. 2000. Air Photo Interpretation For Archaeologist: Tempus Publishing
Ltd: Gloucestershire.
90
Candidate No 46880
WEBSITES.
Web 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonia_%28Roman%29
Date Accessed 17/06/2007
Web 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censor(ancient Rome)
Date Accessed 10/04/2007.
Web 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius
Date Accessed 26/07/07.
Web 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan
Date Accessed 26/07/07.
Web 5. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Romans/Texts/Vitruvius/home.html
Date Accessed 30/07/07.
Web 6. http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-road-construction.php
Date Accessed 18/04/2007.
Web 7. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/augustus.shtlm
Date Accessed 15/08/2007.
Web 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicus
Date Accessed 15/08/2007.
Web 9. http://www.roman-emperors.org/domitian.htm
Date Accessed 15/08/2007.
91
Candidate No 46880
Web 10.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=50.910285~0.020433&style=h&lvl=16&ti
lt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=4347455&encType=1
Date Accessed 10/08/07.
Web 10. www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRbelloc.htm Site Accessed 01/09/2007.
Web 11. S. S. Frere; M. W. C. Hassall; R. S. O. Tomlin
Britannia, Vol. 21. (1990), pp. 303-378.
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/browse/0068113x/ap020021/02a00260/0?fr
ame=noframe&[email protected]/01cce4405c463c114c13cc1b4&back
context=page&backurl=/cgibin/jstor/viewitem/0068113x/ap020021/02a00260/29%3fframe%3dnoframe%26dpi%
3d3%26userID%[email protected]/01cce4405c463c114c13cc1b4%26config
%3djstor%26PAGE%3d29&config=jstor
Accessed 01/09/2007
Web 12
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch1en/conc1en/romannet.html
Accessed 28/08/2007
92