CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIALS

For comparison with the pottery evidence, a study of the manufacture and distribution of ceramic building materials was undertaken (Chapters 3 and 9). The methods of characterisation are the same as those used for pottery but quantification methods and data collection are different. Unlike pottery, brick and tile are usually obtained from one source for one building operation and therefore recording the frequency of different types of tile and brick at a site probably reflects specific site conditions in a way that pottery frequencies do not. To obtain comparably quantified results would require excavation on a much wider scale than has been achieved at any sites except those towns with Urban Excavation Units. The distribution of tile types is therefore best analysed by studying the presence or absence of that type at a site.

Another problem is that bricks and tiles are difficult to date by archaeological means since they tended to be re-used time and again and usually only entered the archaeological record after the destruction of the building of which they were a part. Furthermore, ceramic building materials vary much more than pottery in their regional use and are more responsive to social differences than pots (because of their higher value). Ridge tiles of clay are first found in the late 12th to early 13th centuries but only become common in late 13th century and later contexts. Flat roof tiles, both peg tiles and nibbed tiles, are found in some areas of the country during the 12th century. Apart from Newbury no sites in the region produced these tiles until the late 16th to early 17th centuries. Brick similarly was introduced to the study region in the late 16th century. Floor tiles were a very specialised product and are best treated separately from other types of building material and pottery, even though they were sometimes made in the same centres (Chapter 3).