Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
14 October 2010
00:3274945According to a book I read published in 1864, the Church at the Castle is built on foundations dating back to the fourth century AD. The author explains that the masonery of the building is also largely from that period. His explanations seem convincing, and he had carried out his research directly on the foundations before the Church was renovated, with him a group of archaeologists commissioned by Gov. in London.
The author, Rev. Puckle of Saint Mary in the Town, Dovorian, seems to have been precise in his views, as the material of the foundations and their lay-out (which he had the posibility of examining first hand) are of Roman style, and the foundations were planned in their measurements exactly for the Church that now stands there.
He also explains that the arch-tiles of the windows are definitely of Roman style, and not Saxon. He states that the builders were Britons using Roman architecture.
Does anyone here have a clue why this theory has been later dropped? To me it sounds convincing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 October 2010
09:3674962first i have heard of it alex, i thought that the saxon features look the business to me.
maybe the saxons copied the roman style when working on the windows?
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
14 October 2010
10:2974974It would make perfect sense for there to be Roman building adjacent to the Pharos. Afterall, the troops maintaining the lighthouse would need a shelter and somewhere to store their equipment. However, I'd expect it to be first century, not fourth although of course it could have been rebuilt.
I see no way that anyone could make a statement that such a building it was built by British though - the culture across Southern Britain was entirely Romano-British by the 2nd century, a fusion of the two (with the emphasis heavily on Roman).
The late Saxon St Mary in Castro church definitely re-used Roman tiles and probably flints too. Re-using easily available building materials was common practice.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
14 October 2010
16:1575003Thanks, Howard and Phil.
Although Rev. Puckle's conclusion is that the Britons used Roman architecture that they had learned from the Romans, and that the foundations are typically Roman-style. He explains that they follow the pattern used by Romans to lay roads. The reason for my thoughts here is that he had first-hand insight into the foundations, prior to the renovations, which later experts could not have, as the floor has been retiled and the surrounding mound is covered and isn't subject to any form of archaeological inspection.
He also supplied other interesting explanations as to the masonery above ground level, and made interesting comparisons with other buildings of Roman and Saxon origin.
The tiles used for the church windows, he notes, and the bricks, do not bear the CB initials, which stand for Classis Britannica, which the Romans printed on their bricks and tiles in Dover and Boulogne!
The tiles (or narrow bricks above the windoes) are also of a slightly different texture than those of Roman 1st century manufacture, but made in almost identicle style, and are also characteristic of Roman architecture the way they are inserted above the windows.
He also notes that the church's material is by far in excess of what could have been recuperated from the upper half of the pharos, meaning that the parts of pharos material used in the church could not account for more than a fraction of the church's material
Well, if anyone on the Forum is able to find something out, it would be interesting to know!
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
15 October 2010
10:4175098Well, it sounds to me that the Rev. Puckle was trying to shoe-horn his idea of British involvement into the archaeology. To claim that it was created by British in the style of Roman architecture is really stretching it, but that is doubtless what he wanted to see. If it looks Roman, it will be Roman.
I wouldn't be too certain about the CLBR tiles either. Currently in St. Mary in Castro there is a small selection of Roman artefacts on display in the church and at least one of them displays the fleet stamp (see top left in the display case below). CLBR tiles alone are arguably not 100% indicative of the fleet involvement though - not all roof tiles on fleet structures were stamped so, and it is possible civilian buildings in the are may have used them as they were a 'job lot' manufactured locally. The villa at Folkestone being a good example.
I agree that it would be fascinating indeed to see the foundations.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
15 October 2010
15:0875129Phil, Rev. Puckle wasn't being polemical towards the Romans, he only meant to say that the period in which he believes the foundations and church date to is about the fourth century AD, and assumes that local people - Britons - carried out the work using Roman-style foundation-laying and architecture.
The tiles I refer to are not roof-tiles, but narrow bricks placed above some of the windows in an arc-style, and which, because of their being so narrow, resemble tiles. It is a typically Roman-style way of building.
But glad to know that you have not categorically excluded that the Church might be from that period.
Once again, if you get to know anything about this possibility, and may-be the Council does a kind of archaeoligical inquiery, let us know!
