Commentary

The brick samples from this site show a mixture of overfired and relatively normal material. The samples do not have a frog and conform roughly to the standard size quoted in Dobson (1850, 33) of 9 x 4½ x 3. The 19th century fashion was for large and thick brick such as this (Brunskill, 1990, 38). From examination of the bricks it seems that the material was slop moulded where the brick mould is dipped in water to prevent the clay from sticking (rather than pallet moulded where the mould is sanded), although occasionally some material shows signs of sanding along the sides. This may indicate a change in processes over time, or individual preferences by the moulders, although this has implications in working practices. In the slop moulding process, where the clay is much wetter, the bricks would be laid out to dry for a while before being stacked to further dry out. During this laying out period the bricks would probably have been uncovered, and open to the elements, hence rain drop impressions. There are is also an example of a dog pawprint.

The tile slabs from [412] may be paving tiles, or have another use, such as for cisterns or baker's ovens (Dobson, 1850, 52). Pan tile was also found on the site, which may indicate that it was made there. A fragment of drain pipe may also hint at drain pipe manufacture, particularly as the 'small clay-walled feature' found on the site could be a drain pipe kiln

There is a possibility that lime-burning (for use in mortar) was taking place on the site, as there are frequent reports of mortar on the site plans. Further research on the process of limeburning will need to take place to confirm this.

Further work

Further work on the records of this site could be carried out by examining the Trade Directories for this area. This may help indicate the life of the brickfield, and perhaps the full range of products. Trade directories are an excellent starting point as they can give names to go on, which can then be used to trace further documentation about the site. If the local newspapers have been comprehensively indexed it may prove relatively easy to trace details about ownership and products. Large scale OS maps of the area may indicate the position of buildings on the site. Photographs may be available from that period. Local history oral projects may reveal memories of the industry certainly any local historians in the area should be consulted to see if they have any useful information or contacts.

Buildings close to the site could be studied to see what brick and tile products were used there. Using the samples the clamp products could be characterised (fabric and size) and compared with the buildings.

For this project to be taken to its full potential, it should be set within the context of the brick industry of the area. Using the examples of Sussex and Bedfordshire (see Bibliography), the brick industry of the area, or a discrete area, could be explored. Sites such as Colton, which were used relatively recently, are disappearing to the extent that they are being wiped from the landscape and forgotten. There was undoubtedly

a thriving local brick industry in the area and the chance to explore and record it in detail (including local memories) is rapidly slipping away. In a broader sense, this could be an opportunity for WYAS to work with the local people, and relate the Colton project to the existing community.

From an archaeological stand point this type of clamp site (Victorian) has rarely been examined, so publication of the results will add to the study of these features.

Bibliography

Avoncroft Museum of Buildings, 1978. Bricks and Brickmaking. [Primer about the subject.

Beswick M, 1993. Brickmaking in Sussex: a history and gazetteer, Middleton Press.

Brunskill R W, 1990. Brick Building in Britain. Gollancz. [History of brick buildings.

Hollestelle J, 1974. Soil Marks of Late Medieval Brick Clamps at Wijk bij Duurstede, in ROB, 1974, 185-189.

Nash W G, 1983. Brickwork, 1, Stanley Thorne.

Twist S J, 1984. Stock Bricks of Swale, The Sittingbourne Society

Woodforde J, 1976. Bricks to Build a House, Routledge Kegan Paul.

Contexts

[109], <016>: Bricks showed signs of overfiring that are consistent with clamp material. Some examples had raindrop impressions indicating that they were left to dry in the open. There was also an example of a dog pawprint.

SIZES: W. 109mm T. 64mm

W. 110mm T. 64mm

[403], <005>: Some bricks were vitrified. Mortar was present on some examples. There was one example of a fragment of drain pipe.

SIZES: W. 113mm T.75 (Brick)

W. 78mm (Drain pipe)

[404], <004>: Limestone slabs were present in this context. Also, pan tile in pale pink and red fabrics. The brick showed both normal and overfired examples, and had raindrop impressions.

SIZES: W. 115mm T. 79mm (Normal)

W. 106mm T. 75mm (Overfired)

[405], <006>: Tile slabs show signs of moulding on a surface of grog. Some of the edges are sanded. All fragments are broken.

SIZES: W. 237mm T. 82mm

W. 235mm T. 80mm

W. 230mm T. 80mm

[503], <020>: Examples of pan tile, with pale fabric.

[505], <01>: Example of overfired and blown bricks, both complete and fragmentary. Some examples show raindrop impressions. Fabrics contain grog and small pebbles.

SIZE: L. 232mm W. 110mm T. 80mm (Overfired)

[514], <019>: Examples of overfired and normal bricks. Fabric contains grog and large pebbles. Some examples are fused together. Raindrop impressions are present. Mortar is present on some fragments.

SIZES: L. 240mm W. 114mm T. 85mm

L. 240mm W. 112mm T. 89mm (Normal)