The post you are reporting:
Thanks, 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!