Why Study Tile?

The potential of CBM

Dr Phil Mills MIFA

Honorary Visiting Fellow,
University of Leicester
 Potential
• Methodology
• Dating
• Taphonomy
• Supply
• Function
• Markings
• Display/ Identity
 Quantification
• Wt: Weight
• No: No of fragments
• Cnr: No of Corners
• Min: Minimum no of individuals (Cnrs / 4)
• MT: Min no of tiles per context
• TE: Tile Equivalent
 Dating

                                                                                   

                                                              
Dating
Dating
 Taphonomy
70 %

60 %

50 %

40 % T Wt%
R Wt %
T No %
30 % R No %

20 %

10 %

0%
Con s tru c tio n / De mo litio n De s tru c tio n Rub b is h S u rfa c e Un kn o wn
S tru c tu ra l
 Fragment Size
700

600

500

400
T MSW

300
R MSW

200

100

al on io
n is
h ce n ge
ur it i ct bb rfa ow ra
t ol tru Su
n e
tru
c m s Ru
Un
k Av
S De De
n/
it o
c
t ru
ons
C
 Site Characterisation
100%
Grave
Well
Wall
80% Slot
Robber trench
Posthole
Pit
60%
Hearth/oven
Gully
Drain

40% Ditch
Feature
Layer
Midden
20% Floor layer
Demolition Layer
Construction layer

0% Occupation Layer
BSJ00 FC05 hat422 EKS98 KCS98 MCH02 NTS04

Industrial Rural Urban

 Fabric Supply
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Unknown
50% Regional
Import
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1.Persian 2.Early 3.Seleucid 4.Late 5.Early Roman 6.Flavian - 7.Mid Roman 8.Byzantine 9.Post AD 551
Hellenistic/ Hellenistic Colony Early Imperial Earthquake
Ptolemaic
 Fabrics Supply

T00 – Roman Roof Tile

L00 – Roman bricks
TZ00 – Medieval and later Roof Tile
LZ00 – Medieval and later Brick
 T91 – Related to Pink Grog
Tempered pottery
• Origin Likely Stowe, Magiovinium and
Towcester
• Flourishes in the Late Romano-British
Period
• Storage Jars, Jars, Bowls
• STJ in ‘outer zone’
Fabric T91
 T51 – Related to Horningsea
• Origin Cherry Hinton, Cambridgeshire
• M C2 – M C3
• Storage Jars, Jars, Bowls
• More work needs to be done
T51
 Function

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00% Wt%
No %

Dr Phil Mills MIFA

Cn r%
30.00% Min %

20.00%

Honorary Visiting Fellow,University

of Leicester
10.00%

0.00%
B/T Bric k Flu e Tile Imb re x O ve n Lin in g Te g u la
 Markings
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
Dr Phil Mills MIFA
0.2
Honorary Visiting Fellow,University
0.1
of Leicester
0
Ely BSJ00 Ely EKS98 Bottisham Camb Camb Nhants Nhants Sleaford W ar TR99 war TR99B2 W ar TR99H W orcs Dichin Beirut Carthage
HA T432 HA T297 HA T309 CAS492 RMF02 SPS97 W MC2000
50%

45%

40%

35%
2.Early Hellenis tic/ Ptolemaic
3.Seleucid
30%
4.Late Hellenis tic
5.Early Roman Colony
25% 6.Flavian - Early Imperial
7.M id Roman
8.Byzantine
20% 9.Pos t AD 551 Earthquake
10.Umayyid

15%

10%

5%

0%
Burnt Abraded Reused Mortar Water Rolled
 Display and Identity
100%

80%

60%

Yellow
Red

Dr Phil Mills MIFA

40%

20%
Honorary Visiting Fellow,University
0% of Leicester
Imbrex Tegula Imbrex Tegula Imbrex Tegula Imbrex Tegula Imbrex Tegula Imbrex Tegula Imbrex Tegula Imbrex Tegula Imbrex Tegula

1.Persian 2.Early 3.Seleucid 4.Late 5.Early Roman 6.Flavian - Early 7.Mid Roman 8.Byzantine 9.Post AD 551
Hellenistic/ Hellenistic Colony Imperial Earthquake
Ptolemaic
Painted Tile
Croughton Landscape
 Hellenistic Beirut

Red East Facing Courtyard Corinthian Style

Red West Facing Road N

1 15m
Early Roman Beirut

1 15m

North or East Facing Courtyard Sicillian Style

South or West Facing Road Corinthian Style N

Byzantine Beirut

Yellow South Facing Corinthian Style

Yellow North Facing Concrete

Red North/ East Facing Courtyard

N
Red South/ West Facing Road
1 15m
 Conclusions
Dating Evidence
Building Appearance
Ceramic Supply
Economic Development
Cultural Identity
Rural and Urban landscape