©™®1997
The Methodology, History
and Philosophy
Of
Building Materials in
Archaeology
By
Emeritus
Professor Ian Jeffrey Windsor DCL
14th, August, 2007
Foreword
Chronology
represents the core of the science of building materials. All other aspects of
this science only make complete sense when they are related to the time-line of
the various materials use and reuse.
Hence my phrase ’from the quarry to the present’. However, this does not
include non quarried materials of the same or more importance as stone. It
cannot be emphasised strongly enough that all of the aspects of this science
must primarily be related to a chronological framework, first and foremost.
This enables us to obtain that elusive picture of the use of building materials
from first use to the present use. All this research must be placed in a
chronology in order for us to make interpretation of the analysis possible, and
worthwhile. As shown in Paper 1 below.
Abstract
The
paper concerns itself with presenting the reader with various view points with which
to explore this science. This paper is designed to enable the study of this
science from any level and to offer possibilities for expanding research into
many associated areas. This paper is more than a study aid; it is also a point
for philosophical discussion and the breeding ground for new ideas in this
field.
The reuse of building materials in structures
can be logged and quantified. The data gained from this can establish a pattern
of distribution whether in one period or through many periods. The data can
assist in the discovery of who was reusing the building materials and for what
purpose. The church, the state, or the local populace etc.
Where the materials are found, it may be
discerned after the analysis of the amounts, distribution and location, and
period. The probability of the further locations of other sites where there may
be further examples of reusage, for example an undiscovered Roman Villa. We can
infer from this who had the resources to move the building materials, also the
purpose of the reuse, i.e. religious, political or functional. Movement of
stone in particular was not a simple matter. It requires hard work to
disassemble a building.
Picture of West
Wing wall at Fishbourne Roman Villa. Showing Mixon Reef Limestone blocks.
Transportation of stone and other materials
requires the reduction of the building to small transportable blocks to enable
them to be reused purposefully and easily. Despite recent publications which
suggest that stone was either cheap to obtain or cheap to transport this is
unlikely to be the case especially given the man hours etc. Certain stone was
more valued than others. Also where stone outcrops were rare stone could be considered
a very valuable resource. The extent of the robbing that has occurred and
sometimes the speed of this occurrence, displays the variance and therefore the
need to examine all areas of reuse as part of an overall pattern within each
locality where known robbing or selling has occurred.
It
should also not be discounted, as recent publications have implied that stone
work was only robbed, or that decayed buildings, were easy piles of rubble,
able to be gathered and transported with ease.
It must also be noted, that in many circumstances a person or group
would claim a building ruin, and sell the materials to others and even use the
materials for their own use.
Since
Mixon limestone was found in farm walls and smaller structures, this could
possibly be the case and should not be dismissed out of hand.
The
Building materials when found and traced back
to their probable source should, as far as possible, examine the
source-building for all other materials which may have also been reused, such
as tiles, pottery, brick and mortar.
Examination of any reports on the structure
should be examined for dating of the original source-buildings.
By applying this method to all building which
have the same materials in a reuse context, a pattern will emerge which may
show the robbed building to itself have been constructed of materials from an
earlier structure. Fieldworks of the immediate locality and beyond will
probably then locate other usages. The examination and analysis can then create
a data base.
Through various scientific methods a pattern of
dates for the usage will become apparent allowing for the interpretation of the
reasons for reuse. These cannot be easily labelled, since the data will by
itself dictate the reasons, and presupposing them can cause inaccuracies.
Once a completed data base of all materials
found in a survey of a region has been created, then extrapolation of patterns
of use through distance and time can be made.
Interpretation of this data will evolve a clear
picture of the primary and later users of the materials and in which buildings
they used the materials for. This phase must not be left out of the
analysis. Within this I include all
masonry, whether carved for any purpose or simply rubble, and any other
materials such as wood pottery etc. Especially the importance of carvings or
inscriptions in a structure.
Petrology should be used for pottery and marble
as well as stone, even if the original quarry is not known. This data will be
invaluable later, should a quarry be eventually located.
The geography of the region is often of
paramount importance in establishing reasons for the spread of the materials,
since it can determine why the materials may be found in either a small
cluster, or along a valley or over a vast expanse. Having gained the database
as fully as possible, interpretation of the results should be used to predict
where others sites are likely to exist, and the probability of who was using
the materials, whether untouched or used for robbing. Thus after further
fieldwork more precise data can enhance the data-base and the accuracy of the
interpretation.
It is obvious that the primary information
required of the data-base is the chronological information. By creating as
clear a picture as possible of the start and end dates we may determine the
period of use and reuse. This where possible allows us to examine any written
evidence available, to help in the interpretation. Naturally site reports and
historical reports, including local written items, are of value. The geology
should also be examined and as far as possible an attempt must be made to
determine the effects of any global weather changes which could have a bearing
on the needs of the populace at the time, this can also include large volcanic
eruptions. Further, inundation through rising sea levels and the consequent
need to move settlements etc. further inland should be examined thoroughly. For
example the inundation of the Cathedral of Selsey off Selsey Bill. Too little
underwater coastal surveys have been made, for example off Selsey Bill, where
it is believed that the remains of Selsey Cathedral remain currently unfound,
except by Hume Wallace whom located it whilst diving in the area, where he
reported large cut stones scattered by the sea over time.
The approach to interpretation of the data
should also include the known facts on the regions history. Only then can interpretation of the
importance of the building materials use and reuse begin.
The extent of geographical spread and the quantification
of the amounts found, allows a reasonable estimate of the amount of material
which has not been found. An examination of this data, then allows for further
searches to be made to find this material and this again increases the accuracy
of the database and our ability to refine the interpretation further.
In examining the data base, we should look for
smaller differences in use. For example were there periods of time where bursts
of construction occurred, or periods where nothing appears to have occurred.
This may well be due to political, climatic or religious reasons, previously
unknown to us.
Cross-examination through the database
searching for patterns of other materials found over a spread, either of time
or geographically, can give valuable information to help in the interpretation
of the data collected.
The major aim should be to complete the
timeline followed by extrapolation from the data of any important finds such as
a known material, marble from a known quarry, stone from a known source and or
slate. Wood can be valuable if it is identified on site and in other sites
where the other materials have also been found from the same source. Allowing
if possible dating of the wood originally used and then reused against any
newly introduced wood on the reuse site giving data allowing the determination
of a chronology. Pottery, especially unidentified fragments, found in any
structure should always be examined petrologically, the data from this being
used to create time points within the database. This when combined with local
histories can help to prove or disprove them.
Just as
there is a hierarchy of finds in Roman archaeology there is also a hierarchy
among groups of finds, artefacts and ecofacts. Dr Richard Reece has briefly
charted the recording and study of this artefact hierarchy. Whilst the in-depth
study, rather than purely cataloguing, of inscriptions and coins preceded that
of finewares and lastly courseware’s {Reece, 1993, 863} the study of high
quality stone such as marble as a building material has a longer and more
substantial history than that of less exotic stone.
In the context of Roman Britain, imported
marble, represented the civilised Mediterranean way of life. In Porchester
{Portus Ardaoni} nondescript masonry from the Roman walls was used in the
Close
up of Mixon in the wall at St. Peter’s and St. Mary’s, Fishbourne.
The lack of regular blocks of Mixon elsewhere
logically implies that Mixon from the west wing was reused in the church. Where
building stone is utilised as a substantial component of a structure in Saxon
Britain it is usually limited to churches {Jope, 1964, 91}.
Consequently, as my study indicates, churches
provide the most likely indicators of reuse of material from Roman structures.
The church at Fishbourne is, in this respect, a typical example of Roman ruins
serving as a quarry.
Building stone as an artefact; In 1971 Williams
considered a number of questions that we might ask of building stone in
archaeology. He posed the question 1} How well did builders in Roman Britain
exploit available sources of building material? 2} how did available materials
affect architectural styles? 3} when suitable stone was not available did
builders improvise or import better material? 4} what trading patterns can we
discern from the distribution of particular materials?
The first question can certainly be considered
in the light of this case study. The second; Place names should also be
investigated, since this could become a valuable aid to locating other possible
sites. Also names which reflect potteries, masons, glassworks etc., would be of
great value. Further the association of place names could help with the
reinforcement of the chronology of a region, i.e. Dane, Celtic, Saxon, Norman,
Roman, etc.
The whole interpretation process depends
greatly on overlaying the distributional mapping of the differing data sources
to arrive at conclusions. To overlay the distribution of sites, with, reuse
sites, with quarries, and then place-names by period, and using proven dating
techniques for marble, stone, wood and ceramics etc., would build a
comprehensive map, with levels of overlay enabling us to see possibly hidden
centres of activity in certain periods. By juxtaposition of further data from
locations of churches, farms, castles, manors, abbeys and historically recorded
sites, as well as all archaeological data, a picture of reuse can obtained.
This will
apply in any country where used; and can create a
much larger data-base for use in discovering the social, political, religious
and other issues, to reinforce our understanding where none, or partial
understanding previously existed.
A typical example would be to compare a
completed regional survey using the above methods, then to compare them as
appropriate with a source such as Bede, to see if a correlation exists, which
could confirm whether Bede’s writings and observations are indeed on occasion
correct, or not, as may be the case.
History of this branch of archaeology.
(The following papers include original typing
and spelling errors, to maintain their authenticity)
Report 1993b (
To date I have collected over 70 samples of
stone which will be examined under petrological microscope to determine whether
they come from the 5 reefs. Three samples have been collected from structures
as far afield as Church Norton in west
12.7.94 I the fist interim report I highlighted
the specific areas o study available to us and how this information could be
analysed to produce , ‘...data from this will enable us to gain an idea of the
way in which the stones were distributed over distance and time. More
interestingly than this, the data will disclose who was actually taking and
using the stones and for what purpose. It ill be possible to show that either
the church the state or the local populace were robbing or reusing the stone
for their own use. This will also show who had the resources which enabled the
stones to be moved.’ at that time I had collected some 70 samples of stone. I
am pleased to report that the stone collected as of the date of this report,
now exceeds 138 samples. My first interim report also stated ‘...range of sites
where the stones have been found has begun to define a pattern of movement and
use of these tones...’ I am pleased to confirm that this continues to be the
case and my final report to you next year will show this pattern of
distribution and these results will be quantified. In my second report to you
on 2.12.93, I wrote ,’...pleased to report that the petrological analysis and
preparations are in full swing, hopefully the results will become available in
the Spring of 1994, of the first batch of rock samples...’, A very important
result indeed did come through. It was discovered that the
Report 1995
In 1995 during excavations of Fishbourne Roman
palace, I was asked to present the following report. By far the greater part of
the building stone evidenced during the excavation is flint, chalk and
greensand, with the first clearly predominant. Two samples of a limestone
deriving from the Mixon reefs of Selsey bill {Curry, King, King & Stinton,
1977, 249} were also found during the excavation. Mixon is a distinctive
Alviolina limestone ranging from yellow to orange in colour. context 272,
sample 40, isolated, south end of excavations, outside of the walling. Context
284, sample 41, Packing of greensand floor. This sample is considered to be
from a secure context. As such it constitutes the earliest known use of Mixon
limestone as a building stone. Pieces of each sample were removed from site for
analysis The samples were compared with specimens in a library of Mixon
limestone. The petrography of the samples is identical to the library samples.
Mixon limestone was used to face the west wing of the Flavian palace at
Fishbourne {Cunliffe et al, 1971b, 1-3}. it is also found in Roman contexts at
Mixon Reef Limestone;
The Mixon reefs off Selsey bill are part of the
Selsey formation of the fosiliferous Eocene deposits in the Bracklesham Beds.
The limestone from the Mixon has a very distinctive texture and is yellow in
colour. The microfossils nummulites and Alveolina are abundant in these
deposits {Curry, Kin, king, and Stinton, 1977, 249, Unit S11 the Clibs}.
Formerly limestone from the Langstone reef was associated with that from the
Mixon. However the author has examined samples of stone from both sources in petrological section and
concluded that they are not of the same strata, {Hants & Wight Trust, 1994,
8}Mixon limestone can be divided into two main groups , soft upper and hard
lower limestone {Wallace, nd}. Soft upper Mixon limestone is of limited use for
building but has been used, for example, as a well lining, {
Quarrying, Use and Reuse
Mixon.
The
The presence of Mixon in the form of a
quern-stone at Old Erringham in Shoreham, West Sussex {Holden, 1976, 317}
illustrates that in small amounts even a stone like Mixon limestone with an
essentially local sphere of use {primarily within ten miles} can be transported
a reasonable distance. Shoreham is some 24 miles from Selsey Bill. The most
distant extensive use of Mixon limestone that is included in this survey is
that at Tote Copse castle in Aldingbourne, some nine miles from Selsey Bill.
The castle dates to the twelfth century. However Mixon may have been used at an
earlier date than this and could, of course, represent reuse from an existing
structure. Mixon as used at the castle as a well lining , for the keep wall,
the garderobe walls, the bailey walls and the plinth of the keep {Brewster and
Brewster 969}.
Blagg has outlined the material requirements
for the construction of Roman buildings in
Reuse;
Reuse of stone from Roman structures is
documented at Bitterne in Hampshire {Clausentum}. In 1799, during rebuilding of
the manor house, stone from the Roman site was utilised {Cotton and Gathercole,
1958, 4}. Whilst this example is comparatively modern it illustrates the
continuous use of materials from sites which are no longer utilised for their
original purpose.
There are, of course, many instances of
identifiable Roman material, such as carved stone or tiles, in later buildings.
At the 'Saxon Shore Fort' of Portchester {Portus Ardaoni} non-descript masonry
from the Roman walls was used in the Norman buildings located in the fort
{Cunliffe, 1975, 11}. The clearest example of Mixon reuse is at the
Extent of use - size of pieces
of stone 'bricks'
Building stone as an artefact
In 1971 Williams considered a number of
questions that we might ask of building stone in archaeology. He posed the questions;
1} How well did builders in Roman Britain
exploit available sources of building material?
2} How did available materials affect
architectural styles?
3} When suitable stone was not available, did
builders improvise or import better material?
4} What trading patterns can we discern from
the distribution of particular materials?
The first question can certainly be considered
in the light of this case study. The second is more concerned with the quality
of materials and with the presence or absence of any stone. The third relates
to stone that requires a particular property - for example a stone which can be
finely carved. The final question is perhaps relevant more to building material
other than stone.
Williams notes the relatively limited
distribution of greensand and considers that the cost of transport may have
been a limiting factor. As a source in the inter-maritime zone Mixon would not
be subject to such potentially high costs if transported to a coastal location.
However the extent of distribution still seems to cluster around the Selsey
peninsular itself with limited presence along the coast to the west or east.
Summary and conclusion
Two principle questions arise from the study of
the distribution of Mixon in buildings. Firstly what is the extent of use of Mixon
- the point at which exploitation ceased to be practical because of the
presence of other sources or because of inundation of the quarry through time.
Secondly how does use fit reuse - can we use the presence of Mixon - especially
outside the vicinity of Selsey itself as an indicator of the probable presence
of a Roman building/s in the area? Both these questions are limited by the lack
of excavation of Roman sites in the Selsey area. As Down has written the only
Roman masonry 'villa' excavated on the coastal plane near Selsey was at
Sidlesham {which has Mixon foundation stones} {Down, 1988, 83}.
Aldingbourne and Donnington
are both locations where Mixon has been used after the eleventh century around
which time the Mixon reef was inundated. Copley noted Roman 'aristocratic cist
buras' at Aldingbourne and a Roman burial and possible traces of a Roman road
at Donnington {Copley, 1958 297, 399}. There is the possibility of the Mixon
found at Aldingbourne and Donnington deriving from earlier structures. The
widespread use and apparent regularity of that in the Tote Copse castle at
Aldingbourne is particularly interesting. The stated twelfth century date of
the castle {Brewster and Brewster, 1969} puts this use at just after the
inundation of the reef, though there is clearly room for uncertainty in the
absence of more precise dating of both inundation and construction. Whilst
there is extensive recent use of Mixon in the Selsey area this did not come
from the reef itself but is a mixture of reuse and use of rounded 'boulders' or
perhaps more accurately 'pebbles' from the sea shore at Selsey
Emeritus
Professor Ian J Windsor DCL
13th,
August, 2005-7
mailto:ian@ianwindsor5.orangehome.co.uk
mailto:professorwindsor@msn.com
Archaeology - The use and
reuse of building material
REFERENCES
Akeroyd, A.V. 1972.
Archaeological and historical evidence for subsidence in southern
Aldsworth, F.G. 1987.
Prehistoric and Roman
Aldsworth, F.G. & Garnett, E.D. 1981. Excavations on the
Mound at Church Norton, Selsey in 1911 and 1965,
Blagg, T.F.C. 1990.
Building Stone in Roman Britain, in D. Parsons (ed), Stone: Quarrying and Building in
AD 43-1525.
Bone, A. & Bone, D. 1985. Fossils from Bracklesham
to Selsey.
Buckland, P.C & Sadler, J. 1990. Ballast and Building Stone: A Discussion, in D. Parsons (ed),
Stone: Quarrying and
Building in
Brewster, T.C.M. & Brewster, A. 1969.
Cartwright, C.R. 1984.
Field Survey of
Collins, A.H., Wilson, A.E. & Wilson, C. 1973. Sidlesham Roman Site.
Copley, G.J. 1958. An
Archaeology of
Cotton, M. A. & Gathercole, P.W. 1958. Excavations at Clausentum, Southampton 1951-1954.
Ministry of Works Archaeological Reports No 2.
Cunliffe, B.W. et al.
1971a. Excavations at Fishbourne 1961-1969
Vol. I: The Site, Soc. Antiq.
Res. Rep. 26.
-- et al. 1971b. Excavations at Fishbourne 1961-1969. Vol.
II: The Finds. Soc. Antiq. Res.
Rep. 27.
-- et al.
1975. Excavations at
-- et al.
1976. Excavations at
Curry, D., King, A., King, C. & Stinton, F. 1977. The Bracklesham Beds
(Eocene) of Bracklesham and
Proc. Geological Association. 88 (4), 243-254
Down, A. & Rule, M. et al.
1971.
Down, A. et al. 1974.
-- et al.
1978.
-- et al.
1979.
-- et al.
1981.
-- 1988. Roman Chichester.
-- et al.
1989.
Down, A. & Magilton, J. et a