La teoría de las inteligencias múltiples inteligencia musical

by Ian Betts

This section primarily deals with the building material from Peter’s Hill, which provided most of the building material associated with the construction of the late 3rd century Period II complex. Some additional information was obtained from Sunlight Wharf. These sites have a detailed Building Materials Archive Report (Betts 1987b; see Appendix 4 for availability); for details of the relief-patterned flue tiles, see Betts et al in preparation.

For comments regarding the potential significance of this material in reconstructing earlier buildings, see Chapter 8.1 and 8.2.

Ceramic building material

A vast quantity of Roman building material was recovered from Peter’s Hill, some 2005 kilograms from the Roman levels alone, together with substantial amounts from residual contexts. Unfortunately, the

100

Period D i e

majority of ceramic building material was recorded and discarded when the fabric type collection was still in its infancy; however, all the keyed flue tiles were retained, along with bricks and tiles with various kinds of marks. T h u s i t h a s b e e n p o s s i b l e t o c h e c k t h r o u g h t h e remaining material for rare fabric types.

The majority of the ceramic building material from Peter’s Hill consisted of brick (656 kilos; 46.4%), and roofing tiles (435 kilos; 30.8%). In addition, a relatively small quantity of flue tiles were found (88 kilos; 6.2%). There were two major concentrations of building debris, the Group 2.11 compacted dumps and the Group 2.10 gravel dumps, which lay to the east and west of the main 2.7 foundation respectively.

G r o u p 2 . 1 1 p r o d u c e d t h e l a r g e s t q u a n t i t y o f ceramic building material on the site, a total of 580 kilos (41% of the total assemblage). Brick was the most common ceramic building material (292 kilos, 50.3% of the 2.11 assemblage and 44.5% of the total brick assemblage), but there were also substantial amounts of roofing tiles (134 kilos; 30.9% total site assemblage) and flue tiles (58 kilos, 67% of the total site assemblage). These flue tiles had scored, combed or relief-patterned keying (dies 12 and 101).

The Group 2.10 dumps contained 522 kilos of ceramic b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s ( 3 6 . 9 % o f t h e t o t a l assemblage). Here there were roughly equal quantities of roofing tiles (214 kilos; 41%) of the 2.10 assemblage, 49.2% of the total site assemblage) and bricks (196 kilos; 37.5% of the 2.10 assemblage, 29.8% of the total site assemblage). Only 24 kilos (4.6% of the 2.10 assemblage) of flue tiles were retrieved. Again these had scored, combed or relief-patterned keying (dies 3, 8, 12, 85 and 91). One pattern, die 91, is unique to Peter’s Hill. The rest of the site assemblage (22%) was fairly evenly distributed over the other sub-Groups. The most notable find was a single tegula fragment in a rare fabric (type 3019), of AD 100-120 date, found in the masonry foundation (Group 2.7).

Dating

T h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e c e r a m i c b r i c k a n d t i l e w a s o f 1st-early 2nd century date. This would explain the p r e s e n c e o f l a t e 1 s t / e a r l y 2 n d c e n t u r y P P B R L O N stamped tiles from Groups 2.6, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.13. In addition, there are relief-patterned box flue tiles of late 1st-2nd century date in Groups 2.3, 2.10, 2.11 and 2.13. I n t h e G r o u p 2 . 1 1 a s s e m b l a g e , h o w e v e r , s m a l l quantities of tegula and imbrex in a fabric dated to the late 2nd/3rd century, or later, were found (type 2456; 300 grams or 0.5% of the flue tiles within the 2.11 assemblage).

Relief-patterned flue tile

A total of 13 relief-patterned tiles were found in Period 2 contexts at Peter’s Hill:

3 2.10, 2.13 8 2.10 12 2.10, 2.11, 2.13 42 2.3 85 2.10, 2.13 91 2.10 93 2.13 101 2.11 (two)

Die 91, together with Die 90, which came from a post-Roman context, is unique in Britain.

Decorative stone

A large group of decorative stone work was found at Peter’s Hill, most of which derived from the Group 2.11 dumps (69 out of 72 examples). The stones are listed below, together with their provenance, where known:

(i) (ii)

(iii)

Igneous rocks

Diorite. Probably Eastern desert, Egypt. Gabbro or Dolerite.

Metamorphic rocks

Coarse white marble. Various quarries in the Aegean, or Turkey.

C a r r a r a t y p e m a r b l e . L u n i , T u s c a n y i n Northern Italy.

Cipollino. Island of Euboea off the eastern coast of Greece.

‘Aquitaine’ marble. Quarried near St. Girons, southern France.

P a v o n z z e t t o . Q u a r r i e d n e a r D o c i m i u m i n Phrygia, Turkey.

Portasanta? Island of Chios, in the Aegean. Misc. Marble. Source uncertain.

Sedimentary Rocks

Dark Carboniferous Limestone. Found in various regions of Europe, similar to ‘Tournai‘ marble. Fine buff limestone. Possibly Somerset. ‘Wealden’ shale. Probably the Weald. Purbeck marble. Isle of Purbeck, Dorset

Dating

The date of the original use of this stonework is not easily established, but the black and white ‘Aquitaine’ marble (marmon celticurn) suggests a date no earlier than the 3rd century, as this material is not thought to have been exported from Rome until that date (Pritchard 1986, 187). The Carrara-type marbles are, in contrast, thought to have been in marked decline during the 2nd century (lot cit).

Re-used stone blocks within the Period II masonry foundations

Although a number of samples were taken from the Group 2.7 foundation at Peter’s Hill, only one fragment appears to have survived for study. However, from a visual identification on site recorded in the site archive, it was thought that all the stones were of the same material. The sampled fragment was a coarse shelly oolitic Lincolnshire limestone (from context 1938), comparable with Barnack Stone in the Geological Museum’s reference collection (identification by Dr R W Sanderson).

M o r e s t o n e s a m p l e s w e r e o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e Period II complex foundations at Sunlight Wharf (samples were taken from Groups 1.6, 1.9, 1.14 and 1 . 1 7 ) . A n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t s t o n e t y p e s w e r e recognised in the field, and each was sampled. The most numerous was identified by Dr Sanderson as a coarse s h e l l y o o l i t i c l i m e s t o n e , o f B a r n a c k t y p e . O t h e r r e l a t i v e l y f r e q u e n t t y p e s w e r e L o w e r G r e e n s a n d limestone (Kentish Rag), and sandstone (Hassock). Infrequent types were tufa, and a single fragment of Upper Greensand, possibly Gatton Stone. At present there are no reliable date ranges for the use of stone types in London during the Roman period, although it is interesting to note that Upper Greensand has not previously been found in a Roman context in London.

Slate roofing?

A number of fragments of grey-coloured slate occur in Group 2.11. Although no nail holes are present, these are possibly parts of roofing slates. Roofing slates, assumed to be of Roman date, were found in late Saxon deposits at St Magnus House (Rhodes 1986, 245), but this is the first occurrence of slate in sealed contexts from Roman London. The presence of slates here, together with decorative stonework, would suggest that they originated from a building of particular importance.