FILEY CARR NAZE 1993
AND 1994, FILEY, NORTH YORKSHIRE
Ceramic
Building Materials
The total weight of ceramic building material,
including daub,
is 3.783kg.
The forms present are roof tile and brick.
Each fragment of the sample has been weighed, measured
and the form identified then recorded on a pro forma, which will form part of
the archive. Some small fragments of
tile have been discarded where there were no distinguishing features, otherwise
most of the sample has been retained.
Where there was some doubt as to the form, the fragments were recorded
as brick.
A context listing, showing forms present in each
context is given in Appendix I.
The bulk of the sample comprised Roman ceramic
building material. The major form present was tegulae - roof tile. As stated
above, when in doubt, some material was classed as
brick.
Two Roman fabrics have been identified (Fabrics FA and
FB). It is possible that the two
fabrics are actually from the same industry, but that due to firing differences
and manufacturing variations they appear slightly different.
Fabric FA occurred most frequently. A well fired red
fabric, the fragments had a thickness between 17-27mm. The fragments are mostly
easily identifiable tegulae, with only a few pieces classed as brick, and one
piece (from context 1035) possibly an imbrex, though could be a warped tegulae.
Fabric FB is most typically very thin in fragment
thickness, ranging between 11-22mm. This leads to some doubt as to its form,
and most of the pieces assigned to Fabric B are classed as 'brick'. The fragments are thin enough to be part of
box flue tile, however, there are no fragments showing signs of keying marks,
cutouts or corner pieces which would make the identification more likely. Fabric B tends to be a brown orange colour and always has a
reduced core.
Many fragments of the Filey tegulae have traces of
'signatures'. These are patterns made by drawing the fingers across the body of
the tile when the clay is still wet.
These marks are called 'signatures' as it has been speculated that they
are the products of individual tilemakers, and perhaps indicate how many tiles
have been made in a given period and by whom (Betts, 1987, 27). Unfortunately,
due to the fragmentary nature of the sample there are no complete signatures to
record. However, the marks appear to be
part of semicircles, which are typical signatures.
There is 160g of daub from the site. This was frequently associated with mortar,
and may have been used as some sort of filler to strengthen the mortar.
There is a small amount of modern brick in the sample,
which is recognisable by its refined fabric and form (Fabric FE).
Only one very small fragment each was found of Fabrics
FC and FF. These have been tentatively identified as brick, but their date
is uncertain.
There is not as much
Roman tile as could be expected if the buildings in the signal station were actually
roofed in ceramics. However, the site has been extensively robbed, and perhaps
the tile was removed during this action.
The material is associated with construction contexts, as well as
post-Roman and robbing phases.
The size of the tegulae (indicated by the thickness of
the fragments and the flange profiles on this site) may give some indication of
the date of the tiles. In York, Betts
(1985) observed that the tegulae of military origin and associated with earlier
dates was large, compared to those tiles that could be dated to later in the
Roman period. The tile from Filey is
relatively small compared to the massive military tiles from
York.
The sample of Roman material from the site is very
fragmentary. Many of the fragments of tegula have mortar along broken edges.
This may well indicate re-use. The
tile could have been selected from elsewhere and bought in for particular use
in building the signal station's walls possibly to form bonding courses. This could be supported by the material in
Scarborough Museum from Castle Hill, Scarborough, from the site of the signal
station. Three fragments of tegulae
were retained from Simpson's excavations in the ?1920s and ?1930s. On comparison with the material from Filey,
it was found that the profiles of the tegulae were comparable [illustration?],
and also the fabric appeared to be very similar, if not identical. Interestingly, one fragment of the
Scarborough material also has mortar along
a broken edge. It is possible that the material was
salvaged from another site when the signal stations were built in the 4th
century.
Further
work on the brick and tile in East Yorkshire may help to identify the source,
and possibly the date of this material.
Thanks to
Karen Snowden and Paul Parry of Scarborough Borough Council's Department of
Tourism and Amenities who readily gave access to the archaeological
collections. Thanks also to Kurt
Hunter-Mann who helped out at several points during the work on the report.
S Garside-Neville
4/96
Betts, I M, 1985.
A scientific investigation of the brick and tile industry of York to the
mid-eighteenth century. University of Bradford, unpublished PhD thesis
Betts, I
M, 1987.
'Ceramic Building Material: Recent work in London', Archaeology Today,
October 1987, 26-28
APPENDIX I
Context Listing
Context Form
1016 Brick Roman
1017 Tegula
Roman
1024 Tegula, Brick Roman
1027 Brick, Tegula
1029 Brick, Tegula
1030 Brick Roman
1034 Tegula
Roman
1035 Brick, Tegula, Tegula
1036 Daub
1038 Daub
1039 Tegula Roman
1050 Brick Roman
1051 Modern Brick
1053 Brick
2005 Daub
3001 Daub
3002 Brick, Daub
Roman
3010 Brick
3034 Brick R
3045 Daub
3086 Daub
u/s, 1994
Roman Brick
Roman
1213 Brick
11000 Modern Brick ?
11002 Daub
11003 Brick, Tegula, Daub
11006 Brick, Tegula, Daub
11008 Brick Ro
11033 Daub
11038 Brick Ro
11049 Tegula Roman
11050 Brick
11052 Brick
11057 Brick
11058 Brick, Tegula Roman
12008 Tegula Roman
12020 Brick
12024 Daub
12027 Daub ?
13002 Brick an
13005 Tegula, Daub, Brick