BLI 98/99 - Ilkley, West Yorkshire

Ceramic Building Materials

by S Garside-Neville

1.0 Introduction

There was a small sample of Roman and post medieval ceramic building materials weighing 2.615kg. A catalogue of the material is shown in the table below (Table 1). The brick and tile has been record on a printed pro forma, and the details then entered onto a Access 2 computerised database for manipulation and presentation. These will comprise the archive along with copies of the Word 6 word-processing file.

CONTEXT	FABRIC	FORM	WEIGHT	THICK- NESS	COMMENTS
103	F1	FLUE	200	16	COMBED; VENT?; TRIANGULAR ?SPATULA MARKS
103	F1	FLUE	75	19
103	F1	FLUE	125	17	COMBED
103	F2	TEGULA	75	0	FLANGE ONLY
103	F2	ROMAN BRICK	200	28
103	F1	FLUE	50	18
103	F1	ROMAN BRICK	25	21
103	F0	DAUB	10	0
202	F5	FLUE	100	19	COMBED; 9? TOOTHED COMB; SOOTED/BURNT
202	F1	ROMAN BRICK	175	27
202	F0	DAUB	75	0	2 FRAGS; WATTLE ROD IMPRESSIONS
1001	F0	PIPE	50	14	19TH CENTURY OR LATER; SIMILAR FABRIC TO F2
1004	F4	IMBREX	100	22	/7\
1004	F3	IMBREX	125	19	/7\; REDUCED CORE
1005	F5	ROMAN BRICK	250	27
1007	F0	BRICK	100	0	<8>; POSSIBLY POST MEDIEVAL
3003	F1	ROMAN BRICK	20	0
3010	F4	ROMAN BRICK	25	0
4003	F1	FLUE	50	16	COMBED
4010	F6	BRICK	75	0	ROMAN?
5000	F0	BRICK	25	0	19TH CENTURY OR LATER
5005	F0	BRICK	10	0	?ROMAN
5006	F4	ROMAN BRICK	225	31	REDUCED CORE
6003	F0	BRICK	250	0	19TH CENTURY OR LATER
6006	F0	BRICK	200	0	SIMILAR TO FABRIC F1; PROBABLY POST MEDIEVAL

Table 1: Catalogue of ceramic building materials from Ilkley

2.0 Roman material

2.1 Roof tile - imbrex and tegula

There are two fragments of imbrex, each with a thickness of between 19-22mm. There is only one identifiable fragment of tegula flange.

2.2 Box flue tile

There are five fragments of box flue tile, ranging between 16-19mm thick. Where the flue tile has been keyed, the keying has been made by a comb. The comb used to make the keying for one of the fragments had nine teeth. The type of keying is significant it changes over time. Combed keying probably came in to use during the second century (Betts & Crowley 1993, 55). An unusual feature on a combed fragment from context 103 are the imprints of what appears to be a triangular bladed implement (FIG 1). This fragment is also unusual in that one of its edges has been knife trimmed.

2.3 Brick

The category of brick may include flat fragments of tegula which can be indistinguishable from brick commonly used in hypocaust or wall bonding. The brick fragments range from 21-31mm thick.

2.4 Fabrics

Six fabrics were identified using a x10 hand lens:

Fabric 1

Hard red fabric. Inclusions: Quartz up to 1mm across, poorly sorted abundant; sparse grog; sparse limestone; silty bands.

Fabric 2

Hard yellow-light orange fabric. Inclusions: Quartz, poorly sorted, abundant, sparse grog, common limestone

Fabric 3

Dark red hard fabric, reduced core, sandy. Inclusions: Quartz, abundant, well sorted; sparse limestone

Fabric 4

Dark orange fabric, slightly sandy. Inclusions: Quartz, common, well sorted; occasional silty bands

Fabric 5

Light orange fabric, similar to fabric 2. Inclusions: Quartz, poorly sorted, abundant, sparse grog, common limestone; occasional silty bands

Fabric 6

May not be Roman. Fine red fabric. Inclusions: Limestone up to 2mm across, abundant, poorly sorted, sparse quartz

Betts identified three distinctive fabric groups from tile found in the fort area near Ilkley Church, but could not assign them to a particular source (Betts 1985, 268). It was not possible to compare his fabrics with this tiles from this site.

2.5 Daub

There are two small pieces of daub from context 202. One of the pieces has a flattened surface on one side, with impressions of wattle rods about 7mm across on the other.

3.0 Post medieval material

There were a few fragments of post medieval brick. These were in well refined fabrics, and had signs of machine manufacture which would point to a late 19th century or 20th century date. There were a few undiagnostic pieces which could be the products of medieval period, ranging to the mid 19th century. However, it is possible that these fabrics are in fact Roman

4.0 Conclusion

This small sample indicates that there was a hypocaust in the area (there is known to be a bathhouse associated with the nearby fort), and also buildings substantial enough to have tiled roofs. The presence of daub could indicate timber-framed buildings or perhaps ovens

The combed keying on the flue tile probably indicates building work of a second century or later date. The range of fabrics points to varied sources for the tiles

Although small, this sample has indicated a useful range of tile types and fabrics which will help characterise the ceramic building material from the Ilkley area.

Bibliography

Betts I M, 1985. A Scientific investigation of the brick and tile industry of York to the mid-eighteenth century. Bradford University (unpublished PhD thesis)

Betts I M & Crowley N, 1993. 'Building Materials' in Milne G & Wardle A, 'Early Roman development at Leadenhall Court, London and related research' London and Middlesex Archaeological Society Transactions, Volume 44, 1993, 53-59

sgn