General Kent History Stuff > Domestic and Residential Buildings

Surviving Roman features in more modern Kent buildings

(1/4) > >>

Longpockets:
ALL SAINTS CHURCH, High St., Snodland

Exactly when the first church was built in Snodland we cannot say. St. Augustine landed in Kent in 597 A.D. and the church at Rochester was built in 604. Before long it is likely that other churches sprang up in the valley near-by, perhaps including one at Snodland. Any such building would have been flimsy and just as likely as the rest of the village to have been razed to the ground more than once as early invaders sailed up the Medway. Surviving Anglo-Saxon churches show that the tradition of entering the building from the south side, as at All Saints, dates from before the Norman Conquest. Certainly there is documentary evidence of a church here by 1000 A.D.

When All Saints was first built in stone, the workmen had some useful materials close at hand from the abandoned Roman Villa a few yards to the north. Some Roman tiles and ‘tufa’ can still be seen in the older walls of the present building. We can suppose that around 1100 All Saints looked very like the other two early Norman churches of the parish, Paddlesworth and Dode, although with thatch on the roof rather than the present tiles.

.........It seems likely that the present nave occupies the space of the original church building. The central area of the west wall is perhaps the only part of that earliest stone building to survive, but maybe the chancel also dates from this time. Significantly these are the only parts of the walls which include the Roman material. .........


Source - https://www.snodlandhistory.org.uk/local-history/churches/

MartinR:
Unfortunately the official listing (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1060969) says "Interior: not inspected".  In passing, it has a very early bell: 1430.  There are now only two bells (the other is from 1700), an earlier treble from 1639 having been sold prior to the building of the present tower in 1865.

Cosmo Smallpiece:
Wychling church seems to have not only Roman tiles in the walls, but roman bricks and tufa as well. Seeing a claim that it has a part roman style tiled floor.


Curiously it is separated a little distance from the actual houses of the village, by a large field.


I wonder if this could be a contender for a re-used Roman structure? In the photo I was seeing more tiles further down the wall than higher up (?). This lead me to presume that they would have used nearby materials early on the the church construction?

CAT:
The reuse of Roman tiles is not surprising, though as you say johnfilmer, where have they come from? I was unaware of Wychling Church, so will have a look next time its possible.


The finding of Roman material in a church that dates from at least the early Norman period is a good indicator for a Roman building being in the near vicinity, but as yet undiscovered. Another very good example is the church at Lower Halstow, where an abundance of reused Roman building material can be seen. This includes not only Roman tiles, but also solid lumps of Opus Signinum (pink Roman mortar) as well as other possible Roman building material (Tufa). It is assumed these came from a Roman building that previously stood to the west of the church, but was largely removed during the later quarrying of the Brickearth clay for brick making in the eighteenth - nineteenth century.

johnfilmer:
I have reused this photo of Wychling Church on Guess the Place, and if you enlarge the image the red Roman tiles/bricks are clearly visible in the end (east) wall.
As I said before, the real mystery is where they came from as no local source is known.
Although much mucked about by the Victorians, though putting in a proper floor rather than the earth that was still there may rate slightly higher, it is still a lovely little church, which soon, I hope, will once again be welcoming visitors.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page