By: Wyatt Maeder, Pebble Pup
This Roman tile fragment was found in the Roman Empire. The exact location is unknown. The tile may have covered a Roman home or business. It looks like a type of tile called a Tegula, a flat rectangular tile with raised flanges on the sides. The analysis of the artifact is in the following table.
|
Artifact Analysis: Roman Ceramic Tile |
|
|
Probable origin |
Roman |
|
Estimated age |
Circa 1,926 years
old (100 CE) |
|
Classification |
Tegula (flat roof tile) with a raised
flange on its side |
|
Physical Dimensions |
|
|
Weight |
0.54 kilograms (1 lb.
3.1 oz) |
|
Length |
14 cm (5½ in) |
|
Width |
11 cm (4¼ in) |
Composition & Mineralogy
Visual inspection suggests a fabric rich in quartz grains and iron oxide, which gives the ceramic its characteristic hue. The presence of dolomite is also suspected, likely introduced via sand temper.
The tile may also contain natural clay from the Moza Formation, however, to determine this it would require laboratory analysis. Without a kiln-site test, it remains unclear if the material is refined clay from Rome or the Levant (Roman Judea). If is from Rome, it would likely be made from volcanic clays or muddy deposits from the Tiber Valley. Clays from around Rome are heavily influenced by the volcanic history of the Lazio region. Under a microscope, you would expect to see volcanic minerals such as augite (pyroxene), biotite, and sanidine (feldspar). Some Roman bricks even contain tiny fragments of volcanic tuff. If it is from the sedimentary Moza Formation there would be dolomitic sand and you would see dolomite crystals and limestone fragments, but you would find zero volcanic minerals like pyroxene. Moza Clay typically fires to a light pinkish-orange, yellow-brown, or buff color. Because it is often rich in calcium carbonate (marl), it has a "creamy" look when fired at standard temperatures. Roman (Tiber) Clay: Often has a deeper red to reddish-brown hue due to the specific iron oxides found in the volcanic-rich Italian soils.
 |
| Figure 1. Side view of a fragment of a Roman tile, likely a roofing (tegula) tile. Photo date 2026 by W. Maeder. From the collection of Wyatt Maeder. |
 |
| Figure 2. View of the top of the Roman tile. Note the red coloration and thickness of the tile. Photo date 2026 by W. Maeder. From the collection of Wyatt Maeder. |
Manufacturing Process
Making a Roman roof tile was a lot like a professional version of making a clay project in a classroom, just on a much larger scale. First the workers dug up natural clay and mixed it with water. They added a little sand or crushed old bricks (called "temper") to keep the tile from shrinking or cracking when it got hot. Then the workers shaped the tile, they pushed the wet clay into a wooden frame, sort of like a large brownie pan. For a flat roof tile (tegula), they would use their fingers to create raised edges (flanges) on the sides so the tiles could lock together (see figure 1. and 3). Next it was time to stamp and dry the tile. While the clay was still soft, the workshop would often press a stamp into it—like a brand name—to show who made it. Then, they left the tiles out in the sun to dry out most of the water. Next, it is time to fire the kiln: The dry tiles were stacked inside a massive brick oven called a kiln. A fire was kept burning underneath for several days. Once the temperature hit around 900°C, the clay turned into hard, waterproof stone-like tile. Finally, after the kiln cooled down, the tiles were ready to be shipped to a construction site to keep a Roman house dry for hundreds of years.
 |
| Figure 3. Closeup of tile showing a raised flange on a Roman tile. Photo date 2026 by W. Maeder. From the collection of Wyatt Maeder. |
Whether used as a protective roof covering or a component of a heating system, this artifact serves as a remarkable testament to the intersection of ancient mineralogy and ritualistic craftsmanship. Its enduring composition highlights the sophisticated engineering techniques that have allowed Roman architectural elements to survive for over a millennium.
Acknowledgment: Special thanks to my Mom for all the hard work she did to help me with this paper. Steven Veatch provided critical review.
Reference and further reading:
Brodribb, G. (1987). Roman brick and tile: An analytical survey and corpus of surviving examples.
Cohen-Weinberger, A., Levi, D., & Beʾeri, R. (2020). On the raw materials in the ceramic workshops of Jerusalem, before and after 70 C.E. BASOR: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 383(1), 33–59. doi.org
Cohen-Weinberger, A., Martin, M., & Goren, Y. (2024, February 11). Israel-Palestinian Authority/central highlands/Moza clay. The Levantine Ceramics Project. https://www.levantineceramics.org/petrofabrics/32-israel-palestinian-authority-central-highlands-moza-clay.
Gerding, H. (2006). Early use of fired brick in Hellenistic and Roman architecture. In C. Mattusch, A. Donohue, & A. Brauer (Eds.), Common Ground: Archaeology, Art, Science and Humanities - Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Boston, August 23-26, 2003 (pp. 355-358). Oxbow Books.
